waltappel 1 #51 August 25, 2005 QuoteAnd in regard to you I just refer to the stuff you post in relation to the middle east. A good bit of the middle east stuff that I post is very trollish and I will continue to make those posts because they seem to stimulate some GREAT discussion and I have learned a great deal from that discussion. My firsthand knowledge of the middle east is peripheral at best. I am an importer of fine porcelain and crystal goods from Turkey and went to Turkey twice last year. I have friends there. I've been all over the country and love the people and culture. I am working very hard to get a Turkish friend a business visa so he can come to the US to make his fortune. And yes, he happens to be Muslim. We generally avoid discussing religion and politics these days because it gets really ugly in a hurry, but it all works out ok because we respect each other as people. Quote QuoteTo that end, we do watch what is going on in other countries and study how it happened because we do NOT want that to happen here. I find this weird. Firstly if anything can be "learned" from "gun free" countries - it would tend to support the pro gun control side of the argument - no matter how much the NRA and John Rich try to spin it. I'd have a hard time agreeing with that because our culture is so much different than that of other countries. You make that point well, below. Many countries have a somewhat homogeneous culture. In the US, we do not have anything close to a sort of unified culture. We are a conglomeration of many cultures. Quote Secondly - I actually don't think that the situation in UK, Europe, Australia and NZ can be used in your gun debate for some of the following reason: 1) We don't have the same "history" and culture with guns 2) In modern times we never had the amount of guns in circulation you have - which means that increased restrictions are not faced with the same issues it would in the US. What we are looking for when we look at what we consider to be restrictive gun laws of other countries are the process of how they came about, do they lead to gun confiscation (and if so, how?), and what impacts the laws have on the populace. It really isn't some attempt to mentally transpose your laws on the US in an attempt to predict what would happen. It's more a case of wanting to prevent those kinds of laws from being enacted in the US. From that standpoint, it is useful for us to look at the laws of other countries. Thanks for your post. It really was a good read. edited to add: You mentioned JohnRich. I know John. He's a good guy. And he's a smart guy. Like many, though, including me, he gets very worked up at times because of the constant assault that we legal gun owners in the US are subjected to. We are very much, in fact, among the "good guys", but are constantly portrayed as some sort of psychotic freaks with violent tendencies. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #52 August 25, 2005 QuoteI'd have a hard time agreeing with that because our culture is so much different than that of other countries. You make that point well, below. Many countries have a somewhat homogeneous culture. In the US, we do not have anything close to a sort of unified culture. We are a conglomeration of many cultures. Well, you might want to visit Australia then....(or read up on modern Australian society)--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #53 August 25, 2005 QuoteWell, you might want to visit Australia then....(or read up on modern Australian society) Australia is very much on my list of places I want to visit. I've heard a lot of good things from people who have been there. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #54 August 25, 2005 Quotehand guns are stupid. they should be banned. the nra are redneck morons (don't think thats a personal attack?) the only handgun i have ever layed my eyes on that wasn't on telly. has been in a police holster or a toy. i like it that way. having everybody cruizing around with them is just asking for unessecary death and injury. skydiving is much more athletic that should be in the olympics instead. I resent your personal attack. I am neither a redneck, nor a moron. I am an NRA member and I carry a gun everyday for personal protection. And you sir, have no idea what you're talking about. You ought to read up on the statistics of States which have enacted shall issue CCW laws. Violent crime goes down, and CCW holders are more law abiding than the general population. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #55 August 25, 2005 QuoteAnd you sir, have no idea what you're talking about. You ought to read up on the statistics of States which have enacted shall issue CCW laws. Violent crime goes down, and CCW holders are more law abiding than the general population. well your mate walt up there was trying to tell me that the crime stats in new zealand are higher than the states and as i told him i leave my house unlocked and the keys in the ignition of my car and can walk home by myself at night without worry. alot of peple do here. so if these stats are correct. you're carrying a gun for no reason at all. you are asking for guns to get into the wrong hands and therfore unessecary deaths and injuries. look at the stats on that one (gun related deaths in the u.s. compared to any other contry in the world. ANY COUNTRY. the idea of everybody carrying guns around scares me. there are alot of angry freaks out there. if you do have legitimate reason to carry a gun with you then these statistics that i have been given by your n.r.a. mate up there are very false. and i feel very sorry for you for having to go through life with that fear."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 August 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd you sir, have no idea what you're talking about. You ought to read up on the statistics of States which have enacted shall issue CCW laws. Violent crime goes down, and CCW holders are more law abiding than the general population. well your mate walt up there was trying to tell me that the crime stats in new zealand are higher than the states and as i told him i leave my house unlocked and the keys in the ignition of my car and can walk home by myself at night without worry. alot of peple do here. so if these stats are correct. you're carrying a gun for no reason at all. you are asking for guns to get into the wrong hands and therfore unessecary deaths and injuries. look at the stats on that one (gun related deaths in the u.s. compared to any other contry in the world. ANY COUNTRY. the idea of everybody carrying guns around scares me. there are alot of angry freaks out there. if you do have legitimate reason to carry a gun with you then these statistics that i have been given by your n.r.a. mate up there are very false. and i feel very sorry for you for having to go through life with that fear. Preparedness does not equal fear.... projection, perhaps?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #57 August 25, 2005 QuoteActually, violent crime in the U.S. is at its lowest level in about 25 years. Despite all our guns. Go figure, 'zealanders! There is no correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels. Not here. Not anywhere. Quote but there is a definate correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths an injuries. the lowest level is 25 years? must have been pretty bad back then. you guys seem to get pretty would up over this. it is quite hillarious. guns are stupid. itended for killing, killing sux. no need for killing."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #58 August 25, 2005 Quotewell your mate walt up there was trying to tell me that the crime stats in new zealand are higher than the states and as i told him i leave my house unlocked and the keys in the ignition of my car and can walk home by myself at night without worry. alot of peple do here. Huh?!!! I never said that and certainly never meant to imply that. Quote so if these stats are correct. you're carrying a gun for no reason at all. This is purely speculation on my part, but I believe that violent crime is reduced when the good guys carry concealed handguns. Quote you are asking for guns to get into the wrong hands and therfore unessecary deaths and injuries. look at the stats on that one (gun related deaths in the u.s. compared to any other contry in the world. ANY COUNTRY. the idea of everybody carrying guns around scares me. there are alot of angry freaks out there. It's the bad guys that should scare you. They scare me, and I don't care whether they are carrying guns, knives, baseball bats, tire tools, screwdrivers, razor blades, lead pipes, or anything else. Quote if you do have legitimate reason to carry a gun with you then these statistics that i have been given by your n.r.a. mate up there are very false. and i feel very sorry for you for having to go through life with that fear. Actually, carrying a handgun is quite calming--not because it makes you feel invincible (it doesn't)--it gives you a very clear understanding that you need to be in complete control of your own behavior, even if you are provoked. Also, who is to judge whether someone has a "legitimate" reason to carry a handgun.? If they have the legal right and do not abuse the privilege with illegal behavior, then they need not have any reason other than they want to carry. Good ol' Bill Clinton made some stupid remark a few years back about guns used for "legitimate sporting purposes". The problem is that the people most wanting to define that term are the ones who want to ban guns altogether. Bill Clinton also got the Assault Weapons Ban passed. I would wager that the ban directly resulted in more Americans buying "assault rifles" than anything the NRA could have ever dreamed up. I know plenty of people who never had any interest in assault weapons before the ban, but now own multiple assault weapons and keep thousands of rounds of ammunition in their home. That ban was a ridiculous joke. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CornishChris 5 #59 August 25, 2005 From your link: Quote "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me." How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? I would assume that the answer to that particular question is 'never'. I find this amusing and yet somehow almost offensive. After the article got off to such a good start I couldn't bring myself to read any further. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #60 August 25, 2005 QuoteIn other news today . . . John Rich, not content with the mandate of the NRA, today announced the creation of the International Rifle Association. Poor old John, I guess he's out of luck as the I.R.A has just agreed to get rid of all its guns!! 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 SkyDekker 1,465 #61 August 25, 2005 QuoteAnd since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection. This sentence makes no sense, maybe you will see that when a different subject is put in its place: Adns ince no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing criminals from speeding, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from speeding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #62 August 27, 2005 This debate seems to have spiralled from a discussion about a TRUE and ACTUAL sporting event in the Olympics, that despite some peoples opinion, does take skill, practice and talent (The ability to win a gold in these events takes a lot more than just throwing lead downfield and if you choose to argue this point just prove to me how easy it is by sending me your target with the three holes kissing at a thousand yards.) The original post seemed to center around the laws restricting a standard Olympic event which may vary from the Simple target shooting (an Olympic sport since 1896) to the Biathlon (a cross-country skiing and rifle shooting.) But with the flame and fevor of the speakers corner, it has now become a "guns are wicked and scary" vs. "guns are great, I take them on my date" But to get it back on topic - lets again turn the attention to a discussion on whether a country (UK, or New Zealand or US or Whereever) should change its laws regarding firearms control for the sake of a National Event. The British government wanted the Olympics there.... and should that mean that they should be "forced" to accept all events or are they allowed to pick and choose which events they feel should be competed against. I would think that if they were petitioning for the event... that means ALL the events as accepted by the current International Olympic Committee- whether it be shooting, curling, or if skydiving is ever included. Karen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #63 August 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection. This sentence makes no sense, maybe you will see that when a different subject is put in its place: Adns ince no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing criminals from speeding, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from speeding. Justin, what law prevents someone from speeding? There isn't one, nor should there be. There are laws to punish someone for doing something wrong, but should we pass laws to prevent someone from being able to do something wrong? Do you suggest we make car ownership illegal to prevent speeding and drunk driving? Do you think people going to the theater to should be gagged to prevent yelling "fire?" Do you think the idea of "prior restraint" should be used to prevent crimes, yes or no?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #64 August 28, 2005 >Do you think the idea of "prior restraint" should be used to prevent crimes, yes or no? In some cases, yes. Security at airports comes to mind, as does security surrounding the president and other leaders. Sure, you could remove all that security (and save lots of money in the process) but waiting until someone assassinates the president then punishing him has some practical drawbacks. So we do things like physically removing people from the area he's in to prevent such occurrences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #65 August 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection. This sentence makes no sense, maybe you will see that when a different subject is put in its place: Adns ince no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing criminals from speeding, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from speeding. Your analogy fails. Criminals use guns in bad ways. The law-abiding use guns to counteract the bad attempted by the criminals. Thus, the comparision is of bad versus good. However, in your speeding analogy, the speeding done by the law-abiding does nothing to counteract the speeding done by the criminals. Furthermore, with the guns, we're talking about a law prohibiting the mere ownership of the object, not how the owner uses it. But with speeding, the issue by your definition, is for an act that is already illegal, not just the mere possession of something. A better analogy, if you had thought of it, would have been to compare banning the ownership of automobiles from everyone, because some people use them to speed. That would fail too, of course, just like the gun comparison, because we shouldn't punish the innocent over the actions of the guilty. Thus, your analogy is worthless for comparison and analysis. It fails miserably in several different ways. You'll have to do better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 August 28, 2005 QuoteI would think that if they were petitioning for the event... that means ALL the events as accepted by the current International Olympic Committee- whether it be shooting, curling, or if skydiving is ever included. Thank you Karen. Yes, the Olympic selection committee shouldn't award the events to a country that is not going to allow some of the events to occur. But the Brits have got around that be saying they'll make a special exemption for the pistol competition. They're just not going to let anyone practice it in advance in their country. This just highlights the absurdity of the British policy. If they're not worried about pistol shooters in Olympic competition, then they also shouldn't be worried about the very same pistol shooters in regular non-Olympic weekend competitions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #67 August 28, 2005 Quote>Do you think the idea of "prior restraint" should be used to prevent crimes, yes or no? In some cases, yes. Security at airports... That is the exception, not the rule. And as with your airport security example, I think everyone would agree that we don't want our entire system of law to treat us like that, presuming that everyone is guilty in advance, and making everyone prove that they are innocent. For a citizenry to be free, the concept of "no prior restraint" as enunciated in our Consitution is quite valid and desirable. We shouldn't, as a general principle, punish all of the innocent, because of a few bad apples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites joebud321 0 #68 August 29, 2005 hi john!!! its not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! its not that difficult to train in europe !!! we dont want or need any more guns in this country......god knows we could end up like the states!!!......(a country i love by the way) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #69 August 29, 2005 Quoteits not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! You already have safe storage requirements for the firearms you're still allowed to own, such as single-shot rifles and shotguns. Why aren't those same rules also sufficient for handguns? Why do you restrict ownership of something based upon the fear of theft? Would you ban cars because of the problem of car theft and dangerous joy rides? The freedoms that citizens can enjoy should not be based upon the lowest common denominator - the criminals. Quoteits not that difficult to train in europe !!! It's a hell of a lot more difficult than a one hour car ride to the nearest shooting range. Quotewe dont want or need any more guns in this country. "We"? Do you have a proxy to speak for everyone else? That may be your personal opinion, but it is not one that is shared by everyone in England. You shouldn't presume to speak for others. Your statement implies that you think banning guns is actually effective at preventing criminals from getting and using them. Not so. In fact, gun crimes in England recorded by police have *increased* since the ban. Like this example:A WOMAN was shot dead by a gang of hoodies as she cradled a baby at a packed christening. The 34-year-old mother of two was gunned down in front of 100 terrified friends and relatives. Guests dived for cover when three young black men, armed with a shotgun and a pistol, burst into the room firing. The gang stole handbags, mobile phones and wine before running off. SourceYour gun ban doesn't stop criminals like this from getting what they want to commit their evil deeds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #70 August 30, 2005 Quotehi john!!! its not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! its not that difficult to train in europe !!! we dont want or need any more guns in this country......god knows we could end up like the states!!!......(a country i love by the way) Better ban cell phones, then...that seems to be one of their favorite targets! I'm sure they'll all go away after you do that... it's worked so well for the guns, after all....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #71 August 30, 2005 A story about the efficacy of gun-control from your own home country: So much for gun control When we first read the headline in last Thursday's Sun - "Feds taking aim at gun violence" - we thought that there must have been some mistake. Gun violence? What gun violence? We have a very expensive national gun registry that was put into place to ensure that every firearm in Canada can be tracked. We have cumbersome regulations in place that make it more difficult for Canadians to buy guns. We have armies of bureaucrats shuffling paper to and fro to make sure that everything related to guns in this country is all very above-board and law-abiding. So there can't possibly be any gun violence in Canada! OK, we made our point. There is still lots of gun violence in Canada, and the gun registry hasn't done a single thing to stop it. Well, there's only one of two choices here, and neither one reflects terribly well on current Liberal crime policies. Either these guns are getting into the country through other countries and the federal government's customs agents are not able to prevent it, or these guns are, in fact, originating from here in Canada and the $2-billion boondoggle of a gun registry is - surprise, surprise! - not stopping criminals from using guns.Full Story Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites br0k3n 0 #72 August 31, 2005 QuoteQuotehi john!!! its not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! its not that difficult to train in europe !!! we dont want or need any more guns in this country......god knows we could end up like the states!!!......(a country i love by the way) Better ban cell phones, then...that seems to be one of their favorite targets! I'm sure they'll all go away after you do that... it's worked so well for the guns, after all.... Im not sure what you use cell phones for where you come from, but in the UK they were designed to allow people to communicate, and although i havent lived in the uk for 4 years now, i do believe that that is what they are still used for.... Now guns on the other hand, were invented to "kill" people... there is a small difference.. Same with Cars Jon, cars were not invented to "kill people" so all these analogies about comparing guns with cars, and phones etc is just silly now isn’t it….. ----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 16 #73 August 31, 2005 QuoteIn other news today . . . John Rich, not content with the mandate of the NRA, today announced the creation of the International Rifle Association. lol Geebus John, I dunno about you, but I'd be pretty pissed off if some foreigners tried to tell me how we should be running -our- country. Even if they made sense it's none of their damn business. Like the Japanese and many others in the UN wanting an international ban of private gun ownership, including in the U.S.? Sorry, can't have my guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #74 August 31, 2005 QuoteBetter ban cell phones, then...that seems to be one of their favorite targets! I'm sure they'll all go away after you do that... it's worked so well for the guns, after all.... Im not sure what you use cell phones for where you come from, but in the UK they were designed to allow people to communicate, and although i havent lived in the uk for 4 years now, i do believe that that is what they are still used for.... Now guns on the other hand, were invented to "kill" people... there is a small difference.. Same with Cars Jon, cars were not invented to "kill people" so all these analogies about comparing guns with cars, and phones etc is just silly now isn’t it….. Nice dodge - must've been some *OTHER* United Kingdom that was having the rash of people being mugged/shot/killed for their cell phones... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #75 August 31, 2005 Come on, guys.... back on topic now. Shooting events in the London Olympics. Relavent arguments (all ya'll need to learn how to debate, not argue geeeessssss...... it's like herding cats.) Karen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 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
waltappel 1 #58 August 25, 2005 Quotewell your mate walt up there was trying to tell me that the crime stats in new zealand are higher than the states and as i told him i leave my house unlocked and the keys in the ignition of my car and can walk home by myself at night without worry. alot of peple do here. Huh?!!! I never said that and certainly never meant to imply that. Quote so if these stats are correct. you're carrying a gun for no reason at all. This is purely speculation on my part, but I believe that violent crime is reduced when the good guys carry concealed handguns. Quote you are asking for guns to get into the wrong hands and therfore unessecary deaths and injuries. look at the stats on that one (gun related deaths in the u.s. compared to any other contry in the world. ANY COUNTRY. the idea of everybody carrying guns around scares me. there are alot of angry freaks out there. It's the bad guys that should scare you. They scare me, and I don't care whether they are carrying guns, knives, baseball bats, tire tools, screwdrivers, razor blades, lead pipes, or anything else. Quote if you do have legitimate reason to carry a gun with you then these statistics that i have been given by your n.r.a. mate up there are very false. and i feel very sorry for you for having to go through life with that fear. Actually, carrying a handgun is quite calming--not because it makes you feel invincible (it doesn't)--it gives you a very clear understanding that you need to be in complete control of your own behavior, even if you are provoked. Also, who is to judge whether someone has a "legitimate" reason to carry a handgun.? If they have the legal right and do not abuse the privilege with illegal behavior, then they need not have any reason other than they want to carry. Good ol' Bill Clinton made some stupid remark a few years back about guns used for "legitimate sporting purposes". The problem is that the people most wanting to define that term are the ones who want to ban guns altogether. Bill Clinton also got the Assault Weapons Ban passed. I would wager that the ban directly resulted in more Americans buying "assault rifles" than anything the NRA could have ever dreamed up. I know plenty of people who never had any interest in assault weapons before the ban, but now own multiple assault weapons and keep thousands of rounds of ammunition in their home. That ban was a ridiculous joke. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #59 August 25, 2005 From your link: Quote "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me." How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? I would assume that the answer to that particular question is 'never'. I find this amusing and yet somehow almost offensive. After the article got off to such a good start I couldn't bring myself to read any further. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #60 August 25, 2005 QuoteIn other news today . . . John Rich, not content with the mandate of the NRA, today announced the creation of the International Rifle Association. Poor old John, I guess he's out of luck as the I.R.A has just agreed to get rid of all its guns!! 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #61 August 25, 2005 QuoteAnd since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection. This sentence makes no sense, maybe you will see that when a different subject is put in its place: Adns ince no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing criminals from speeding, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from speeding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #62 August 27, 2005 This debate seems to have spiralled from a discussion about a TRUE and ACTUAL sporting event in the Olympics, that despite some peoples opinion, does take skill, practice and talent (The ability to win a gold in these events takes a lot more than just throwing lead downfield and if you choose to argue this point just prove to me how easy it is by sending me your target with the three holes kissing at a thousand yards.) The original post seemed to center around the laws restricting a standard Olympic event which may vary from the Simple target shooting (an Olympic sport since 1896) to the Biathlon (a cross-country skiing and rifle shooting.) But with the flame and fevor of the speakers corner, it has now become a "guns are wicked and scary" vs. "guns are great, I take them on my date" But to get it back on topic - lets again turn the attention to a discussion on whether a country (UK, or New Zealand or US or Whereever) should change its laws regarding firearms control for the sake of a National Event. The British government wanted the Olympics there.... and should that mean that they should be "forced" to accept all events or are they allowed to pick and choose which events they feel should be competed against. I would think that if they were petitioning for the event... that means ALL the events as accepted by the current International Olympic Committee- whether it be shooting, curling, or if skydiving is ever included. Karen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #63 August 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection. This sentence makes no sense, maybe you will see that when a different subject is put in its place: Adns ince no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing criminals from speeding, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from speeding. Justin, what law prevents someone from speeding? There isn't one, nor should there be. There are laws to punish someone for doing something wrong, but should we pass laws to prevent someone from being able to do something wrong? Do you suggest we make car ownership illegal to prevent speeding and drunk driving? Do you think people going to the theater to should be gagged to prevent yelling "fire?" Do you think the idea of "prior restraint" should be used to prevent crimes, yes or no?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #64 August 28, 2005 >Do you think the idea of "prior restraint" should be used to prevent crimes, yes or no? In some cases, yes. Security at airports comes to mind, as does security surrounding the president and other leaders. Sure, you could remove all that security (and save lots of money in the process) but waiting until someone assassinates the president then punishing him has some practical drawbacks. So we do things like physically removing people from the area he's in to prevent such occurrences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #65 August 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd since no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing the criminals from getting guns, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from owning them for self protection. This sentence makes no sense, maybe you will see that when a different subject is put in its place: Adns ince no law ever passed has ever accomplished the goal of preventing criminals from speeding, then there should none passed which prevent the law-abiding citizens from speeding. Your analogy fails. Criminals use guns in bad ways. The law-abiding use guns to counteract the bad attempted by the criminals. Thus, the comparision is of bad versus good. However, in your speeding analogy, the speeding done by the law-abiding does nothing to counteract the speeding done by the criminals. Furthermore, with the guns, we're talking about a law prohibiting the mere ownership of the object, not how the owner uses it. But with speeding, the issue by your definition, is for an act that is already illegal, not just the mere possession of something. A better analogy, if you had thought of it, would have been to compare banning the ownership of automobiles from everyone, because some people use them to speed. That would fail too, of course, just like the gun comparison, because we shouldn't punish the innocent over the actions of the guilty. Thus, your analogy is worthless for comparison and analysis. It fails miserably in several different ways. You'll have to do better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 August 28, 2005 QuoteI would think that if they were petitioning for the event... that means ALL the events as accepted by the current International Olympic Committee- whether it be shooting, curling, or if skydiving is ever included. Thank you Karen. Yes, the Olympic selection committee shouldn't award the events to a country that is not going to allow some of the events to occur. But the Brits have got around that be saying they'll make a special exemption for the pistol competition. They're just not going to let anyone practice it in advance in their country. This just highlights the absurdity of the British policy. If they're not worried about pistol shooters in Olympic competition, then they also shouldn't be worried about the very same pistol shooters in regular non-Olympic weekend competitions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 August 28, 2005 Quote>Do you think the idea of "prior restraint" should be used to prevent crimes, yes or no? In some cases, yes. Security at airports... That is the exception, not the rule. And as with your airport security example, I think everyone would agree that we don't want our entire system of law to treat us like that, presuming that everyone is guilty in advance, and making everyone prove that they are innocent. For a citizenry to be free, the concept of "no prior restraint" as enunciated in our Consitution is quite valid and desirable. We shouldn't, as a general principle, punish all of the innocent, because of a few bad apples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joebud321 0 #68 August 29, 2005 hi john!!! its not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! its not that difficult to train in europe !!! we dont want or need any more guns in this country......god knows we could end up like the states!!!......(a country i love by the way) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #69 August 29, 2005 Quoteits not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! You already have safe storage requirements for the firearms you're still allowed to own, such as single-shot rifles and shotguns. Why aren't those same rules also sufficient for handguns? Why do you restrict ownership of something based upon the fear of theft? Would you ban cars because of the problem of car theft and dangerous joy rides? The freedoms that citizens can enjoy should not be based upon the lowest common denominator - the criminals. Quoteits not that difficult to train in europe !!! It's a hell of a lot more difficult than a one hour car ride to the nearest shooting range. Quotewe dont want or need any more guns in this country. "We"? Do you have a proxy to speak for everyone else? That may be your personal opinion, but it is not one that is shared by everyone in England. You shouldn't presume to speak for others. Your statement implies that you think banning guns is actually effective at preventing criminals from getting and using them. Not so. In fact, gun crimes in England recorded by police have *increased* since the ban. Like this example:A WOMAN was shot dead by a gang of hoodies as she cradled a baby at a packed christening. The 34-year-old mother of two was gunned down in front of 100 terrified friends and relatives. Guests dived for cover when three young black men, armed with a shotgun and a pistol, burst into the room firing. The gang stole handbags, mobile phones and wine before running off. SourceYour gun ban doesn't stop criminals like this from getting what they want to commit their evil deeds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 August 30, 2005 Quotehi john!!! its not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! its not that difficult to train in europe !!! we dont want or need any more guns in this country......god knows we could end up like the states!!!......(a country i love by the way) Better ban cell phones, then...that seems to be one of their favorite targets! I'm sure they'll all go away after you do that... it's worked so well for the guns, after all....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #71 August 30, 2005 A story about the efficacy of gun-control from your own home country: So much for gun control When we first read the headline in last Thursday's Sun - "Feds taking aim at gun violence" - we thought that there must have been some mistake. Gun violence? What gun violence? We have a very expensive national gun registry that was put into place to ensure that every firearm in Canada can be tracked. We have cumbersome regulations in place that make it more difficult for Canadians to buy guns. We have armies of bureaucrats shuffling paper to and fro to make sure that everything related to guns in this country is all very above-board and law-abiding. So there can't possibly be any gun violence in Canada! OK, we made our point. There is still lots of gun violence in Canada, and the gun registry hasn't done a single thing to stop it. Well, there's only one of two choices here, and neither one reflects terribly well on current Liberal crime policies. Either these guns are getting into the country through other countries and the federal government's customs agents are not able to prevent it, or these guns are, in fact, originating from here in Canada and the $2-billion boondoggle of a gun registry is - surprise, surprise! - not stopping criminals from using guns.Full Story Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #72 August 31, 2005 QuoteQuotehi john!!! its not that we dont trust the shooters!! its the idiots that would fancy stealing these weapons!!!! its not that difficult to train in europe !!! we dont want or need any more guns in this country......god knows we could end up like the states!!!......(a country i love by the way) Better ban cell phones, then...that seems to be one of their favorite targets! I'm sure they'll all go away after you do that... it's worked so well for the guns, after all.... Im not sure what you use cell phones for where you come from, but in the UK they were designed to allow people to communicate, and although i havent lived in the uk for 4 years now, i do believe that that is what they are still used for.... Now guns on the other hand, were invented to "kill" people... there is a small difference.. Same with Cars Jon, cars were not invented to "kill people" so all these analogies about comparing guns with cars, and phones etc is just silly now isn’t it….. ----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #73 August 31, 2005 QuoteIn other news today . . . John Rich, not content with the mandate of the NRA, today announced the creation of the International Rifle Association. lol Geebus John, I dunno about you, but I'd be pretty pissed off if some foreigners tried to tell me how we should be running -our- country. Even if they made sense it's none of their damn business. Like the Japanese and many others in the UN wanting an international ban of private gun ownership, including in the U.S.? Sorry, can't have my guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 August 31, 2005 QuoteBetter ban cell phones, then...that seems to be one of their favorite targets! I'm sure they'll all go away after you do that... it's worked so well for the guns, after all.... Im not sure what you use cell phones for where you come from, but in the UK they were designed to allow people to communicate, and although i havent lived in the uk for 4 years now, i do believe that that is what they are still used for.... Now guns on the other hand, were invented to "kill" people... there is a small difference.. Same with Cars Jon, cars were not invented to "kill people" so all these analogies about comparing guns with cars, and phones etc is just silly now isn’t it….. Nice dodge - must've been some *OTHER* United Kingdom that was having the rash of people being mugged/shot/killed for their cell phones... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #75 August 31, 2005 Come on, guys.... back on topic now. Shooting events in the London Olympics. Relavent arguments (all ya'll need to learn how to debate, not argue geeeessssss...... it's like herding cats.) Karen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
