peacefuljeffrey 0 #76 July 28, 2004 QuotePlease also remember that previous to the handgun ban it would be very difficult for any person that had a licence to own a handgun to use it for any for of self defence. You would have to have someone break into your house and for you to be trapped, unable to escape the house and be able to show that you were in immediate danger of serious physical injury, e.g. the other party was armed and was preparing to fire upon the homeowner. Even then, the homeowner wound be in for a hell of a ride from the police with possible charges being brought and very probably loss of firearms licences. Any claim that the handgun ban has made anyone less able to defend themselves is incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of UK law in this area. Of course you are more than welcome to comment on how ridiculus you feel that situation is, but don't confuse it with the ban on handguns. You're right; it absolutely is a ridiculous situation. The concept of having to abandon your OWN HOME when it is entered illegally by a person who evidently means you harm or death is ABHORRENT. Why is it, then, that your COUNTRY is not obligated to flee to another country when some foreign aggressor-nation invades it? What justifies your country standing and fighting to keep out invaders, but not an individual in his home? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #77 July 28, 2004 QuoteWhat I am taking issue with is the pro gunners advising us to change our laws based on your success. The point I'm arguing ad-nauseam, is that what works over there may not work over here, and its not such a burning issue with us Brits. What, we don't suffer the anti-gunners over there and over here arguing that WE should change OUR laws based on YOUR "success"? I mean, for Christ's sake we have anti-gun idiots telling us we should adopt a strategy that has been shown to be an abject FAILURE over there! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #78 July 28, 2004 Because of cultural and legal reasons that greatly predate the 97 legislation, firearms never prevented a statistically significant amount of crime in this country. Therefore taking them away cannot have increased the incidence of crime – gun related or otherwise. Thus we are no less safe than before as a result of the legislation. The situation is different in the states. You can point to ways in which firearm ownership can reduce crime over there. It’s as simple a distinction as that. There has been no “failure” in the strategy though. No one has been killed [I]because[/I] of the 97 legislation. We have no way of knowing how many people have been saved because of that legislation. It may be only one or two, it may have been dozens… no one will ever know. We are also unable to distinguish between the different influences on gun crime in this country to be able to say that there is more gun related crime [I]as a result[/I] of the legislation. Please feel free to re-visit my earlier posts on this topic in our recent threads where I went into detail about the influx of foreign gang crime in this country. This influx, which temporally correlates with any rise in gun related crime that people are able to point to, is the event highlighted by the law enforcement industry as the cause of our current problems – not any change in the law. I ask you all; how on earth would reverting to the pre-97 position would reduce crime? Note that I say the pre-97 position NOT the American position on gun ownership, or how you would like it to be in your dreams… but the pre-97 position. People here are claiming that the change in 97 created gun crime – why? Don’t just produce a statistic and say “see”; produce a reason why you think you can establish causation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #79 July 28, 2004 QuoteOf course I don't believe that any UK government would be able to get into the position where it was able to impose the kind of restrictions that would classify it as tyrannical, regardless of private firearm ownership. Why not? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #80 July 28, 2004 QuoteWhy not? Why not: Poll Tax riots changed the law. Fuel protests ground things to a halt. 6 million people marched against the Iraq war. 3 million(ish) marched on the anti-fox hunting ban. they wouldn't get that far is why not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #81 July 28, 2004 We're talking about a tyrannical government taking power. Not changing current policy. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #82 July 28, 2004 QuoteWe're talking about a tyrannical government taking power. Forcibly or through democratic process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #83 July 28, 2004 QuoteWe're talking about a tyrannical government taking power. Not changing current policy. Seriously? Our armed forces wouldn't stand for it for a start. Neither would the people. Anyone attempting it would fail to find enough supporters to operate an effective tyranny. And it just wouldn't be British Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #84 July 28, 2004 QuotePeople here are claiming that the change in 97 created gun crime – why? Don’t just produce a statistic and say “see”; produce a reason why you think you can establish causation. I am making no such claim of a causal link. I think UK gun crime would have gone up even if all the guns had *not* been confiscated. Crime is a function of many things, such as demographics, the economy, culture, and so on. But there is no correlation between levels of civilian gun ownership, and crime rates. If you examine the statistics for countries which don't allow gun ownership, you find some with high crime rates, and some with low crime rates. Likewise, for countries with high levels of gun ownership, you also find both high and low crime rates. The only thing you can conclude from these examples, is that gun ownership has no bearing on crime rates. So all I'm saying is that the guns were confiscated for nothing. The fact that gun crime went up despite the confiscation, demonstrates that the gun confiscation was ineffective in achieving the desired goal. Therefore, many thousands of people were deprived of their property for no reason. And there is a lesson to be learned from this example, for other countries considering a similar program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #85 July 28, 2004 QuotePlaying devil's advocate on this point, but I'd guess that the answer to that one would be that guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to transport people. And yet cars kill 3.5 times more people, by accident, than do guns, used with illegal purposeful intent. We should be so lucky as to have car accidents occuring at as low a rate as gun murders. I'll give up my guns, when Ted Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Boxer and other gun-grabbing politicians give up their motor vehicle transportation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #86 July 28, 2004 That's one step removed from the stance some people have taken, on here and in the wider gun loby. Your stance is one which, in essence, I agree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #87 July 28, 2004 QuoteThat's one step removed from the stance some people have taken, on here and in the wider gun loby. Your stance is one which, in essence, I agree with. Well, I'm speaking for the specific case of the UK, where gun ownership levels for self-defense weren't that high to start with, and where the laws made it very difficult to use a gun for self-defense anyway. In America, on the other hand, where gun ownership is widespread, as is also their use in self-defense, then the story might well be different. Take guns away from all Americans, and crime might indeed go up as a direct result of that, due to the removal of a large deterrence factor. Have I talked you out of agreeing with me now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #88 July 28, 2004 QuoteHave I talked you out of agreeing with me now? Nope. Where were you two weeks ago? Sheesh! We spent a week and a half trying to convince the gun loby on here that the UK and the US were poles appart when it came to gun crime. There's probably about 10 pages of me and nac and a couple of others trying to convince people of what you just posted... I mean exactly what you just posted. If only we'd had an "insider" to agree with us at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #89 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteHave I talked you out of agreeing with me now? Nope. Where were you two weeks ago? Sheesh! We spent a week and a half trying to convince the gun loby on here that the UK and the US were poles appart when it came to gun crime. There's probably about 10 pages of me and nac and a couple of others trying to convince people of what you just posted... I mean exactly what you just posted. If only we'd had an "insider" to agree with us at the time. Well, that's just my take on this issue, and my word certainly isn't the final say so. There is room for honest disagreement on this issue. But thanks for agreeing with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #90 July 29, 2004 Quote Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........ Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally. A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #91 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuote Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........ Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally. A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Good point. What was that doctor's name, the British doctor who murdered almost two hundred helpless patients? I'm still trying to figure out how he managed to pull that off without having to use a gun! He must have been some sort of superman... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captain1 0 #92 July 29, 2004 {SORT OUT THIS SHITHOLE THAT WAS ONCE A COUNTRY TO BE PROUD OF TONY!] Maybe you need guns but????Well, what part of the shithole of the big city do you live in? I am proud of Tony just as I am proud of Bush. They may have lied to justify the war on Iraq but what would Iraq be doing 20 years from now if they had not?? Anyways, I'm getting way off the point of this post. I have always had a lot of respect for England. In my opinion, the country is not part of Europe(eurodollar). The country stood against Germany WWII. The country (God bless the queen) has always been loyal to America regardless of public opinion. Most people do not carry guns on their self in USA unless they are criminals. As far as having guns in your house, that is another matter where I think the constitution of the United States gives us that right and justifiably so. GOD BLESS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #93 July 29, 2004 Harold Shipman. Google laddie, google. Digression aside for moment please, nobody has given us a rock solid (supportable) justification to change our laws. Nobody can produce firm stats or case studies showing that the British population will be safer if we adopted more widespread private gun ownership.We have seen talk of self defence, potentially the strongest argument for revisiting the handgun bans, but nothing substantial as a reference point. The risible notion that we need a militia to keep our government in check won't cut it with our legislators, aka the government, neither will the admission that our armed forces are incapable of defending our shores from external agression by our neighbours. Remember we are not arguing to take guns away from people, that was done following the mass murder of 17 people, mostly kids. We (as in this discussion) are trying to justify providing people with weapons, the onus is on the pro gun lobby to provide this justification, and so far I ain't seeing it. Side track and dodge questions as much as you like, I'm still not seeing valid (ie not just an opinion, or a bizarre scenario) justification that could be used to initiate the change in our law. It will need to be something that wows our populace more than the killing of 16 kids and their teacher in their quiet little town school....... Otherwise, guys, I'm afraid your just pissing against the wind.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #94 July 29, 2004 "A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it." Ah, the "ban the cars and pointy sticks as well" argument. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could cause a similar casualty toll, 17 dead and a further 17 wounded, even amongst a large group of toddlers, in the same timeframe with a piece of 2x4, or a steak knife. 3-4 minutes is all it took to fire 105 rounds from 4 handguns, that was the one of the big shockers at the time. By the way, there hasn't been a recurrence of that sad day in this country, so your assertion is basically incorrect, or speculative at best.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #95 July 29, 2004 QuoteBy the way, there hasn't been a recurrence of that sad day in this country, so your assertion is basically incorrect, or speculative at best. Of course there hasn't. The incident you speak of was the exception, rather than the rule. There likely wouldn't have been a repeat of that no matter what the current law. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #96 July 29, 2004 "There likely wouldn't have been a repeat of that no matter what the current law." The Dunblane massacre followed the Hungerford massacre by about nine years. I guess thats about as close as we get to a repeat incident, fortunately. The Hungerford nutter admittedly didn't go at it in a school, he went on what could only be described as a rampage around the town.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #97 July 29, 2004 I have always been a patriot. I grew up a conservative (somewhat like Republican) as I've got older my politics have changed towards the centre. I live in London in one of the nicer parts where thousands of American (and other) tourists come every year to watch two people knock a little green ball back and forth over a net. I also live in a very different culture to the one where I grew up in, even though its the same location. I'm not against guns but I don't think they can be made available to the British public as the public are not ready for that step at the moment. I live in a country where the streets are controled by drunk youths, where violent crime is increasing all the time. Where there are no morals (generaly speaking) no public sense of responsibility. Where the unmarried teenage mother rate is higher than anywhere in Europe and sexualy transmitted disease is out of control. We live in danger from Eastern European and Jamacan drugs gangs and honesty, integrity and courage are laughed at. This country is on a social slide down the shitter. Recent polls showed that over 70% of Britans wanted out. After having donned two of her Majesties uniforms all I can say is I can't wait to leave. This was a great country but its being( if not already) ruined. Time to bale.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #98 July 29, 2004 QuoteThe Dunblane massacre followed the Hungerford massacre by about nine years. I guess thats about as close as we get to a repeat incident, fortunately. Two events, 9 years apart, and they felt the need to disarm the ENTIRE population. There's something not right about that. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #99 July 29, 2004 "I can say is I can't wait to leave." You want to move to Scotland mate.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #100 July 29, 2004 "Two events, 9 years apart, and they felt the need to disarm the ENTIRE population." No, they banned handguns, shotguns hunting rifles etc are still allowed, they only took weapons from the hoplophilliacs.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnRich 4 #84 July 28, 2004 QuotePeople here are claiming that the change in 97 created gun crime – why? Don’t just produce a statistic and say “see”; produce a reason why you think you can establish causation. I am making no such claim of a causal link. I think UK gun crime would have gone up even if all the guns had *not* been confiscated. Crime is a function of many things, such as demographics, the economy, culture, and so on. But there is no correlation between levels of civilian gun ownership, and crime rates. If you examine the statistics for countries which don't allow gun ownership, you find some with high crime rates, and some with low crime rates. Likewise, for countries with high levels of gun ownership, you also find both high and low crime rates. The only thing you can conclude from these examples, is that gun ownership has no bearing on crime rates. So all I'm saying is that the guns were confiscated for nothing. The fact that gun crime went up despite the confiscation, demonstrates that the gun confiscation was ineffective in achieving the desired goal. Therefore, many thousands of people were deprived of their property for no reason. And there is a lesson to be learned from this example, for other countries considering a similar program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #85 July 28, 2004 QuotePlaying devil's advocate on this point, but I'd guess that the answer to that one would be that guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to transport people. And yet cars kill 3.5 times more people, by accident, than do guns, used with illegal purposeful intent. We should be so lucky as to have car accidents occuring at as low a rate as gun murders. I'll give up my guns, when Ted Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Boxer and other gun-grabbing politicians give up their motor vehicle transportation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #86 July 28, 2004 That's one step removed from the stance some people have taken, on here and in the wider gun loby. Your stance is one which, in essence, I agree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #87 July 28, 2004 QuoteThat's one step removed from the stance some people have taken, on here and in the wider gun loby. Your stance is one which, in essence, I agree with. Well, I'm speaking for the specific case of the UK, where gun ownership levels for self-defense weren't that high to start with, and where the laws made it very difficult to use a gun for self-defense anyway. In America, on the other hand, where gun ownership is widespread, as is also their use in self-defense, then the story might well be different. Take guns away from all Americans, and crime might indeed go up as a direct result of that, due to the removal of a large deterrence factor. Have I talked you out of agreeing with me now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #88 July 28, 2004 QuoteHave I talked you out of agreeing with me now? Nope. Where were you two weeks ago? Sheesh! We spent a week and a half trying to convince the gun loby on here that the UK and the US were poles appart when it came to gun crime. There's probably about 10 pages of me and nac and a couple of others trying to convince people of what you just posted... I mean exactly what you just posted. If only we'd had an "insider" to agree with us at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #89 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteHave I talked you out of agreeing with me now? Nope. Where were you two weeks ago? Sheesh! We spent a week and a half trying to convince the gun loby on here that the UK and the US were poles appart when it came to gun crime. There's probably about 10 pages of me and nac and a couple of others trying to convince people of what you just posted... I mean exactly what you just posted. If only we'd had an "insider" to agree with us at the time. Well, that's just my take on this issue, and my word certainly isn't the final say so. There is room for honest disagreement on this issue. But thanks for agreeing with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #90 July 29, 2004 Quote Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........ Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally. A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #91 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuote Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........ Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally. A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Good point. What was that doctor's name, the British doctor who murdered almost two hundred helpless patients? I'm still trying to figure out how he managed to pull that off without having to use a gun! He must have been some sort of superman... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captain1 0 #92 July 29, 2004 {SORT OUT THIS SHITHOLE THAT WAS ONCE A COUNTRY TO BE PROUD OF TONY!] Maybe you need guns but????Well, what part of the shithole of the big city do you live in? I am proud of Tony just as I am proud of Bush. They may have lied to justify the war on Iraq but what would Iraq be doing 20 years from now if they had not?? Anyways, I'm getting way off the point of this post. I have always had a lot of respect for England. In my opinion, the country is not part of Europe(eurodollar). The country stood against Germany WWII. The country (God bless the queen) has always been loyal to America regardless of public opinion. Most people do not carry guns on their self in USA unless they are criminals. As far as having guns in your house, that is another matter where I think the constitution of the United States gives us that right and justifiably so. GOD BLESS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #93 July 29, 2004 Harold Shipman. Google laddie, google. Digression aside for moment please, nobody has given us a rock solid (supportable) justification to change our laws. Nobody can produce firm stats or case studies showing that the British population will be safer if we adopted more widespread private gun ownership.We have seen talk of self defence, potentially the strongest argument for revisiting the handgun bans, but nothing substantial as a reference point. The risible notion that we need a militia to keep our government in check won't cut it with our legislators, aka the government, neither will the admission that our armed forces are incapable of defending our shores from external agression by our neighbours. Remember we are not arguing to take guns away from people, that was done following the mass murder of 17 people, mostly kids. We (as in this discussion) are trying to justify providing people with weapons, the onus is on the pro gun lobby to provide this justification, and so far I ain't seeing it. Side track and dodge questions as much as you like, I'm still not seeing valid (ie not just an opinion, or a bizarre scenario) justification that could be used to initiate the change in our law. It will need to be something that wows our populace more than the killing of 16 kids and their teacher in their quiet little town school....... Otherwise, guys, I'm afraid your just pissing against the wind.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #94 July 29, 2004 "A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it." Ah, the "ban the cars and pointy sticks as well" argument. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could cause a similar casualty toll, 17 dead and a further 17 wounded, even amongst a large group of toddlers, in the same timeframe with a piece of 2x4, or a steak knife. 3-4 minutes is all it took to fire 105 rounds from 4 handguns, that was the one of the big shockers at the time. By the way, there hasn't been a recurrence of that sad day in this country, so your assertion is basically incorrect, or speculative at best.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #95 July 29, 2004 QuoteBy the way, there hasn't been a recurrence of that sad day in this country, so your assertion is basically incorrect, or speculative at best. Of course there hasn't. The incident you speak of was the exception, rather than the rule. There likely wouldn't have been a repeat of that no matter what the current law. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #96 July 29, 2004 "There likely wouldn't have been a repeat of that no matter what the current law." The Dunblane massacre followed the Hungerford massacre by about nine years. I guess thats about as close as we get to a repeat incident, fortunately. The Hungerford nutter admittedly didn't go at it in a school, he went on what could only be described as a rampage around the town.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #97 July 29, 2004 I have always been a patriot. I grew up a conservative (somewhat like Republican) as I've got older my politics have changed towards the centre. I live in London in one of the nicer parts where thousands of American (and other) tourists come every year to watch two people knock a little green ball back and forth over a net. I also live in a very different culture to the one where I grew up in, even though its the same location. I'm not against guns but I don't think they can be made available to the British public as the public are not ready for that step at the moment. I live in a country where the streets are controled by drunk youths, where violent crime is increasing all the time. Where there are no morals (generaly speaking) no public sense of responsibility. Where the unmarried teenage mother rate is higher than anywhere in Europe and sexualy transmitted disease is out of control. We live in danger from Eastern European and Jamacan drugs gangs and honesty, integrity and courage are laughed at. This country is on a social slide down the shitter. Recent polls showed that over 70% of Britans wanted out. After having donned two of her Majesties uniforms all I can say is I can't wait to leave. This was a great country but its being( if not already) ruined. Time to bale.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #98 July 29, 2004 QuoteThe Dunblane massacre followed the Hungerford massacre by about nine years. I guess thats about as close as we get to a repeat incident, fortunately. Two events, 9 years apart, and they felt the need to disarm the ENTIRE population. There's something not right about that. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #99 July 29, 2004 "I can say is I can't wait to leave." You want to move to Scotland mate.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #100 July 29, 2004 "Two events, 9 years apart, and they felt the need to disarm the ENTIRE population." No, they banned handguns, shotguns hunting rifles etc are still allowed, they only took weapons from the hoplophilliacs.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #90 July 29, 2004 Quote Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........ Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally. A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #91 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuote Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........ Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally. A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Good point. What was that doctor's name, the British doctor who murdered almost two hundred helpless patients? I'm still trying to figure out how he managed to pull that off without having to use a gun! He must have been some sort of superman... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain1 0 #92 July 29, 2004 {SORT OUT THIS SHITHOLE THAT WAS ONCE A COUNTRY TO BE PROUD OF TONY!] Maybe you need guns but????Well, what part of the shithole of the big city do you live in? I am proud of Tony just as I am proud of Bush. They may have lied to justify the war on Iraq but what would Iraq be doing 20 years from now if they had not?? Anyways, I'm getting way off the point of this post. I have always had a lot of respect for England. In my opinion, the country is not part of Europe(eurodollar). The country stood against Germany WWII. The country (God bless the queen) has always been loyal to America regardless of public opinion. Most people do not carry guns on their self in USA unless they are criminals. As far as having guns in your house, that is another matter where I think the constitution of the United States gives us that right and justifiably so. GOD BLESS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #93 July 29, 2004 Harold Shipman. Google laddie, google. Digression aside for moment please, nobody has given us a rock solid (supportable) justification to change our laws. Nobody can produce firm stats or case studies showing that the British population will be safer if we adopted more widespread private gun ownership.We have seen talk of self defence, potentially the strongest argument for revisiting the handgun bans, but nothing substantial as a reference point. The risible notion that we need a militia to keep our government in check won't cut it with our legislators, aka the government, neither will the admission that our armed forces are incapable of defending our shores from external agression by our neighbours. Remember we are not arguing to take guns away from people, that was done following the mass murder of 17 people, mostly kids. We (as in this discussion) are trying to justify providing people with weapons, the onus is on the pro gun lobby to provide this justification, and so far I ain't seeing it. Side track and dodge questions as much as you like, I'm still not seeing valid (ie not just an opinion, or a bizarre scenario) justification that could be used to initiate the change in our law. It will need to be something that wows our populace more than the killing of 16 kids and their teacher in their quiet little town school....... Otherwise, guys, I'm afraid your just pissing against the wind.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #94 July 29, 2004 "A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it." Ah, the "ban the cars and pointy sticks as well" argument. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could cause a similar casualty toll, 17 dead and a further 17 wounded, even amongst a large group of toddlers, in the same timeframe with a piece of 2x4, or a steak knife. 3-4 minutes is all it took to fire 105 rounds from 4 handguns, that was the one of the big shockers at the time. By the way, there hasn't been a recurrence of that sad day in this country, so your assertion is basically incorrect, or speculative at best.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #95 July 29, 2004 QuoteBy the way, there hasn't been a recurrence of that sad day in this country, so your assertion is basically incorrect, or speculative at best. Of course there hasn't. The incident you speak of was the exception, rather than the rule. There likely wouldn't have been a repeat of that no matter what the current law. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #96 July 29, 2004 "There likely wouldn't have been a repeat of that no matter what the current law." The Dunblane massacre followed the Hungerford massacre by about nine years. I guess thats about as close as we get to a repeat incident, fortunately. The Hungerford nutter admittedly didn't go at it in a school, he went on what could only be described as a rampage around the town.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #97 July 29, 2004 I have always been a patriot. I grew up a conservative (somewhat like Republican) as I've got older my politics have changed towards the centre. I live in London in one of the nicer parts where thousands of American (and other) tourists come every year to watch two people knock a little green ball back and forth over a net. I also live in a very different culture to the one where I grew up in, even though its the same location. I'm not against guns but I don't think they can be made available to the British public as the public are not ready for that step at the moment. I live in a country where the streets are controled by drunk youths, where violent crime is increasing all the time. Where there are no morals (generaly speaking) no public sense of responsibility. Where the unmarried teenage mother rate is higher than anywhere in Europe and sexualy transmitted disease is out of control. We live in danger from Eastern European and Jamacan drugs gangs and honesty, integrity and courage are laughed at. This country is on a social slide down the shitter. Recent polls showed that over 70% of Britans wanted out. After having donned two of her Majesties uniforms all I can say is I can't wait to leave. This was a great country but its being( if not already) ruined. Time to bale.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #98 July 29, 2004 QuoteThe Dunblane massacre followed the Hungerford massacre by about nine years. I guess thats about as close as we get to a repeat incident, fortunately. Two events, 9 years apart, and they felt the need to disarm the ENTIRE population. There's something not right about that. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #99 July 29, 2004 "I can say is I can't wait to leave." You want to move to Scotland mate.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #100 July 29, 2004 "Two events, 9 years apart, and they felt the need to disarm the ENTIRE population." No, they banned handguns, shotguns hunting rifles etc are still allowed, they only took weapons from the hoplophilliacs.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
