vortexring

Seeing as it's my favourite photo when it went temporarily missing I was a bit worried! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Indeed! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It may have been this quote: "People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing. " Or maybe this one: "But what I've noticed is that less and less people smoke these days. It's fast becoming socially unacceptable. Perhaps something similiar will happen to America concerning gun ownership?" Maybe this one?: I'd rather people were confident enough to go about their daily lives without a firearm to help them feel secure. Confident enough to use alternative means for self defence. Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one? Maybe you should re-read your quotes from this thread, above. Sheesh! You can't read my writing! I repeat; "I might bring forth an argument that's opposite to your opinion. I might believe attempts to develop a society away from a gun culture to be the way ahead." 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I don't think it's invalid because there are enough cases of law abiding gun owners finding themselves suddenly non-law abiding. As simple as that - perhaps it's this potential that bothers people. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, I think the point went zinging over your head mate, but I wouldn't worry - it was neither serious or particularly relevant. p.s. your last post in reply to Kallend has been a most interesting read. Thanks. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I see you continue to fail to tell us how to improve campus security so these events won't happen. Yes, you're tapdancing big time. Since you can't prevent risk without removing most freedom, you can't remove the threat. Therefore, you work on the defense. I repeat; "Did I imply the option to arm himself wasn't there? Nice sidestep from the intended implication nonetheless. I see that a lot when gun issues are being discussed. You might even accuse me of sidestepping the improvement of campus security issue you now have. Well, now you know!" Are we clear now? I can repeat it again if you like.

Ok - you're wrong. Nobody here is advocating doing nothing about crime - merely giving the criminal's VICTIMS a chance for an effective means of defense - the MOST effective, if you look at the data for it. Are you annoyed when others deliberately imply you meant something else to support their argument? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

And you'd be wrong. Google "armed citizen" and see what you come up with. I still find it telling that you want to deny the most effective means of defense against a violent criminal. See last sentence, above. Yes, I do know exactly what you mean - you don't care how many innocent victims get racked up, just so long as the criminals aren't doing it with guns. Most 85 year olds I know find difficulty in drinking their tea, never mind getting into a firefight with a criminal. More importantly - where did I ever say I wish to deny non-criminals firearms? I might bring forth an argument that's opposite to your opinion. I might believe attempts to develop a society away from a gun culture to be the way ahead. But I've never said what your implying I said. Your continual unstable accusations and implications make me laugh. Thanks mate!

That's very admirable and I sincerely wish you well in your work. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Very, very well said. And agreed with.

Well, it's not like he has a choice in the matter anyway. If the only choices in Glasgow are to go unarmed or kill yourself, of course you march on. "Improve campus security" is the lamest solution suggested here. But like many solutions, no actual detail provided. If major city police departments can't prevent crime, how will the smaller universities (big ones are police departments) with security guards going to prevent anything bad from happening. They can't stop drinking and pot smoking, how can they stop all violence? They can't. Did I imply the option to arm himself wasn't there? Nice sidestep from the intended implication nonetheless. I see that a lot when gun issues are being discussed. You might even accuse me of sidestepping the improvement of campus security issue you now have. Well, now you know! Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be also implying that since you can't stop all violence there isn't really an issue to discuss? Seeing as you can't eradicate all gun crime, you should just arm all the non-criminals and be done with tackling the problem!? Come on! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Nice - how do you suppose that 85 year old, 105 lb granny is going to do in a physical confrontation with an 18 year old, 185 lb street punk? Mate, how many 85 year olds do you know who can handle a pistol properly? Who have the clarity of vision? The necessary speed of reaction? The dexterity to rapidly cock the weapon or deal rapidly with a stoppage? So all pensioners should arm themselves just in case? I'll warrant most American pensioners don't. Why don't you tell us exactly how to go about that? Especially describe how it's worked in completely eradicating all gun crime in Brittania. We'll be waiting. You'll be waiting a while - you'll never totally eradicate gun crime. Even you should know that. The way forward to more unarmed victims for criminals, perhaps. You know exactly what I mean! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Really!? These guys come under my bracket of American gun culture problems. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

"When I used to work as a skydiving instructor, I came to realize that each person sets his or her own standard for safety. Some people jump with a helmet; some don't. Some people jump with an automatic activation device (opens your parachute if you get knocked unconscious); some don't. Some skydivers feel that high performance (high speed) landings are too dangerous. Others think that high speed landings are okay but that skysurfing is too dangerous. And others think that skysurfing is okay but that BASE jumping (jumping off of fixed objects) is too dangerous. Each person draws his or her own line in the sand. It doesn't mean that any of them are necessarily right or wrong. Some people wear a seatbelt; some don't. Some people carry a gun; some don't." Most governments make it illegal to not wear a seat belt. Despite individual rights, this is a good law, from which countless people benefit.............. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I don't think it's the gun culture that's a problem. I think it's the criminal gun culture that's a problem, and yes, I am involved in dealing with that problem in my every day job. Glad to hear it. What exactly are you doing to deal with the problem, if you don't mind me asking? According to some people here, it may well be you're wasting your time! There will always be a potential for armed attacks - it's unfeasable to eradicate all firearm crime, so why even bother? Wouldn't it just be better to allow everyone to be armed, to then deal with the matter, and leave it at that?

Where on earth did I say or imply an encouragement of people being helpless against gunmen? I'd rather people were confident enough to go about their daily lives without a firearm to help them feel secure. Confident enough to use alternative means for self defence. Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one? And of course, you may well be doing so. Which, I'm sure you're aware, is the way forward. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Americans' homes have roughly twice the square footage per occupant as those in the EU, Americans own more appliances, and, on average, they spend about 77% more each year than Europeans." So, happy happy joy joy, all! I pretty much agree having visited the states often, but my last trip changed that perception a little. I was in Arizona for a couple of months and was a bit surprised. The mobile phones for sale in your shopping malls were fairly backward on the whole compared to Euro models. Even your televisions! Most stores were still selling old fashioned things with only a few modern LCD/plasma models available. And the standard housing around Tucson - like a British council estate! All the little crappy Jap cars everywhere! Old fashioned clothes! What's happening? I wondered if this is becoming a nationwide issue or is it just restricted to Arizona? p.s. loved buying all my stuff for 'half' price though! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why via PM? If you have a magic answer, the Oakland and San Francisco PDs would love to hear it. But I fairly sure you're blowing smoke. That's fine. The PM suggestion was simply a hint that I can't really be bothered with a pointless argument. If Mnealtx is going to ask questions I've directed at someone else himself, he could at least then answer the particular questions. Instead of making an attempt to ridicule other areas of my post, and preventing adult discussion. Smoke... There's a possible comparison to gun laws. Really! The government recognises society is best off not smoking as a whole. It saves individual health, and with significantly less smokers, saves a nations health service millions upon millions. So despite there being people wanting to smoke - it benefits society if they don't. So we've all these anti-tobacco laws coming into effect, such as banning smoking in public places. Quite possibly we'll soon see bans in private cars, even at home! It'll certainly save the kids from passive smoking, and the smokers themselves, even though they'll continually set themselves on fire given the chance - they have a right to smoke. But what I've noticed is that less and less people smoke these days. It's fast becoming socially unacceptable. Perhaps something similiar will happen to America concerning gun ownership? edit: Did I say I have the magic answer? Improving campus security starts quite simply. There's always methods to improve security. Always. Have a think about it yourself. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Who implied they couldn't/didn't fight back? Put it this way, I know a lad who; roughly several seconds after being attacked, was left with a machette embedded in his elbow and a smashed knee cap from a baseball bat. Are you surprised to know he continues his day to day life unarmed? It's a mentality I doubt you can understand. In Glasgow the hardmen don't carry weapons for self defence. That's a small part of the mentality. Do you go out wearing body armour? Do you take out with you a trauma pack? Do you drive in a car to work wearing a crash helmet? Probably not. I don't wear body armour, or a crash helmet whilst driving, although I do carry a trauma pack inside my car. When I leave the car the trauma pack stays there. I'll take that risk. Just like I'll take the risk of going about my day to day life unarmed. If I'm attacked and killed/seriously injured then so be it. Where do you draw the line to prevent this? Where do you draw the line on items to help prevent this? If you're line stops at physically carrying a pistol and learning martial arts fair enough. I'm not ridiculing anyone for this. (unless of course I'm ridiculed for not seeing it necessary to carry a pistol!) And besides, do I really want to carry constantly a heavy lump of weight on my person every time I go out? Not a chance. I'll take my chances. There are many other physical items designed for self defence? Do you carry these around with you? If not, why not? Is it really worth arguing over? You'll keep your idea of what's best for you just as I'll keep my idea. What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing. That last paragraph is quite likely to cause some offence to yourself and others, but that's not my reason for saying it. I wrote it simply because that's what I believe.

I know too many people who have been robbed, hurt or raped because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time to believe that arming yourself is fearful and paranoid. Have you, a friend, or family member ever been a victim of a violent crime? I hope not, but the experience does change your perspective, because it makes you realize that nobody, anywhere, is ever really safe, and and believing that nothing bad will happen to you does not make it so. Kris, myself, family and friends are from the Glasgow area in Scotland. A recent statistic claimed it to be the murder capital of the Western world. Whether it is the murder capital, I cannot say, but I can say it can be relatively violent. So what do you think? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

And yet, you just did EXACTLY what you accused him of doing...too funny!! Did I? Nope - but yet you label those that DO wish to carry as being paranoid/fearful. Light heartedly - the smiley face implies humour. Really. If you've got some sort of magic wand to get rid of the criminals (the only way you're going to solve that problem), then start waving it. I'd start by more effective campus security - and that would make a difference. PM me if you're not sure how. Actually, no, the "let's get rid of all the guns" is the quick-fix solution that isn't working. Up until GCA 68, anyone could walk down the street packing and nobody thought it odd. The good old days, eh? Well, times are a changing mate, best get on the bus. I agree - fuck the bastards that want to take away MY right to defend myself. There's a bit more to it than that. And yet, you argue from exactly that position...imagine that. Wrong. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

A remarkably relevant post on a vital subject. At the risk of sounding dramatic, I feel this is one of the most important issues facing the world today. It reminds me also of a quote by Samuel P. Huntingdon; "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." But that aside, America improving its standing in the world could arguably improve the world. Now wouldn't that be a great thing? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

And now it's back.

My avatar's been mysteriously replaced by another - WTF? If whoever is responsible wishes a ransom fee, please get in touch and we can negotiate. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I recognise the logic - but the matter isn't black and white as you allude to. People who don't agree with your views can't all be painted with your 'gun-o-phobia' brush - as I'm sure you're well aware. Essentially you're saying such people are paranoid and fearful, and 'stupid little fools'! Now, that's out of order because it simply isn't the case, whilst it also implicates that people on your side of the fence to be the opposite. In my view it's the people who insist on continually carrying a weapon as being a touch fearful and paranoid.