Gun Control

Stricter Gun Control In US

  • Yes, stricter control.

    Votes: 22 17.2%

  • No, we love our guns!

    Votes: 106 82.8%
  • Total voters
    128
B

bmn

Active Member
Since guns are illegal in Britain and have been for quite some time, anybody care to explain why Britain's violent crime supersedes America's violent crime?

Isn't it also ironic that people that are CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) or CHL (Concealed Handgun License) certified have generally a less than 1% revocation ratio due to the fact that the training of both programs (some states are CCW, others are CHL) spends most of the time training people to use verbal judo and WALK AWAY FROM ALL FIGHTS, WHETHER THE PERSON IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

The only time that American citizens are authorized to use their gun (including just pulling it out of it's holster, pocket, purse, fanny pack, whatever is applicable in said state) is when deadly force is required to defend from a deadly threat or potential deadly threat (e.g. someone running at you in an attack position).

The US CDC has done an EXTREMELY LONG study on gun control and found that it's pretty much ineffective. As I mentioned with Britain above, they have no guns and their violent crime supersedes ours, and they have incredible amounts of knife violence as well as some sporadic gun violence. It was interesting to see Australia's prime minister come out attacking the U.S. when as a result of his 10 someodd year plight against guns, crime has spiraled out of control in his country.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jan. 2002 - Armed Students Stop Gunman at Appalachian School of Law
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jan. 2006 - Virginia General Assembly Shoots Down Campus Carry Bill[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]August 2006 - VT Student's Editorial About Not Being Able to Carry on Campus[/FONT]
Gun Facts
 
G

Godkas

Well-Known Member
Gun control is overrated. I think everyone should be issued a gun and trained to use it and I think they should be allowed in every building so when some stupid ass pulls a gun he gets shot by 50 people.

Seriously folks. The V-Tek shooting could have been avoided easily if another student there had a gun.

Taking the guns out of the hands of the people does NOT take the guns away from the criminals. Never has and Never will. Case closed.
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
Found this on the web from an ex cop... stats can be manipulated.


stevewalters gave this follow-up answer on 5/15/2000:

Certainly gun crime is increasing in the UK, and at, for us, an alarming rate. Recently in a city near myself there have been 8 shootings in a 2 week period. However, there were none that I know of for a few months prior to that.
Gun crimes are increasing here, however it is normally either drug related , or accidental in drug related situations. Personally, in the 8 years I served as a police officer I only attended 2 firearms incidents, one drug related, one an armed robbery. If you compare that with the average american officer, I'm sure that the figure would be higher. The only area where their is a real firearms problem, or rather was, was northern ireland, with the terrorist organisations on both sides of the sectarian divide, both unionist and republican. However since the ceasefires took place over a year ago, it has been a much safer place.
Certainly gun crime in the UK is increasing, but it can never escalate too much, since firearms need to be smuggled into the country. We always have had some gun related crime in the UK, however most people in the UK would be more afraid of knives being used in crime, as opposed to guns. Also there are no incidents, or rather very few, of members of the public using firearms in family criem, or self defence. I can think of one case in the last few years where a criminal was fatally shot by a house owner, who is now serving time for murder. Gun accidents are rarely heard of. Whilst Dunblane was a terrible tragedy, it was a rare event. Their have been more school children killed in the USA with firearms (including accidents and criminal action) in the last twelve months per capita, than there have been in the UK in at least the previous century.
 
Smirgen

Smirgen

Well-Known Member
skunkushybrid
If guns were outlawed, your average car jacker and burglar would not have access to them.
Click to expand...
Kinda like Recreational drugs are outlawed here in the U.S.A. and yet I can get them anywhere and everywhere anytime I want.

There are an estimated twohundred and fifty Million guns in the USA so even if you could abolish the second amendment you would still never get rid of all the guns even in several lifetimes, Besides all that would do is create a Huge Black Market for guns smuggled in through our borders just like the recreational drugs and Illegal Aliens.

The answer is not Taking away Freedoms from the Innocents for the actions of the Criminals...Thats a Crime in itself.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Law abiding citizens deserve to own and carry a handgun if they so desire. This country was founded on the right to bear arms. What keeps the criminals from stomping in your front door and taking everything you own is fear. Fear that you might just blow them back out the door. If law abiding folks were forced to turn in their guns, the criminals would have a field day stomping in doors and raping and pillaging. Meth heads have no conscience, and in case you haven't noticed, there is an epidemic going on in this country. Guns are not the problem. Nut cases and Criminals are the problem
 
mogie

mogie

Well-Known Member
Medicineman is correct. If guns were taken out of the homes of regular citizens criminals would run hog wild. If someone comes to do physical harm to the little old lady down the street she has the right to shoot them defending herself.

Until the day there is zero crime, zero unrest and zero oppression people will and should continue to bear arms.
 
G

Godkas

Well-Known Member
Exactly :) Glad we're on the same track.

This Marine both applauds and supports armed citizens

When this nation was founded the great men who conceived it vowed that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In their time they wanted everyone to be armed so what occurred would never happen again. You give the people the ability to defend themselves and they will make the right decision.
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
medicineman said:
Law abiding citizens deserve to own and carry a handgun if they so desire. This country was founded on the right to bear arms. What keeps the criminals from stomping in your front door and taking everything you own is fear. Fear that you might just blow them back out the door. If law abiding folks were forced to turn in their guns, the criminals would have a field day stomping in doors and raping and pillaging. Meth heads have no conscience, and in case you haven't noticed, there is an epidemic going on in this country. Guns are not the problem. Nut cases and Criminals are the problem
Click to expand...
Good to see you back med'.

I'll agree that nut cases and criminals are the problem. Yet surely it doesn't help matters when they have access to guns. A gun is only any good against an unarmed man or someone you have the draw on.

So med', if you were to hand in your guns your greatest fear is that you would be raped and pillaged by gangs of marauding criminals. That is very funny. The fact that without your gun you consider yourself defenceless. What is stopping gangs of marauding criminals from raping and pillaging me? I don't have a gun.

If you take the guns out of the hands of the citizens you take it out of the hands of the nutcases (that's a surety) and the types of criminals that are so poor they need to break into people's homes. You will be on an equal footing, although this is really what you're afraid of.

Guns will not be prohibited this time. Maybe not even the next, or even if there were to be a whole classroom of 5 year olds slaughtered... but one day you guys ARE going to wisen up.
 
k-town

k-town

Well-Known Member
I was waiting for someone to say that. Nobody seems to have a problem fighting wars with guns but when someone wants one for the same purpose (to protect themselves and their freedom) as soliders need them for it's "OH MY GOD"
fdd2blk said:
why not disarm the military then?
Click to expand...
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
skunkushybrid said:
I have the utmost respect for you 7x, despite our (slightly?) differing of opinion from time to time.

I still can't read your post, coked off it at the mo'... the mrs is calling me to bed.
Click to expand...

thank you, SKH, i also have great respect for you and your well articulated views.

i would have replied long ago but i only got on the net to check my email and the weather this weekend... site prep involving several very large trees, a chainsaw, a 2-ton winch and a back ache. winter is over.

:)


.
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
skunkushybrid said:
Are you a survivalist 7x? Jesus (and I don't say that lightly)! The Government is us 7x, you me and everybody. John Major (the one before Tony Blair) came from a working class family, his dad was a milkman. These people are us, how can we fail ourselves? There is no us and them, only us.

History does not always repeat itself, that's bullshit and you know it. I could be pedantic about the thing right now, but it does go much deeper too. OK, some things in history are repeated but our governments work extremely hard in keeping us in the lifestyle we have become accustomed to. They work for us, because they are us.

I can't believe you called us (englanders) a neutered people just because we don't have any guns should our government suddenly decide to take away all of our rights. Which would be impossible. They take away our rights only when we agree to it, they use the media to enforce what we should be thinking and then we think it. I've even found it hard myself to step back from what I'm being told and look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately, the masses are not even aware of it, make sure they make all the right noises at work the next day. You have to agree with society to be a part of it, yet it only takes one differing voice to head society's thoughts in a different direction. What I'm saying is that the government could never control us while we don't want to be controlled. Guns don't fit into this equation. We are past the need for armed revolution, the people do have power.

The Invasion scenario: The thinktanks in our two countries hold some of the best minds in the world. It is their (obviously there are multiple departments involved within this 'thinktank') job to see into the future. I suppose in extreme cases you might liken some of them to soothsayers. I'm sure we are more than aware of any impending threats, hence I believe the war in Iraq (maybe for oil, maybe as a way of stopping the taliban rise, more than likely both) and Afghanistan. A big mistake now would be to allow the Taliban to get a greater foothold in Pakistan. If we are seen to be helping (rather than occupying) the Pakistani soldiers fight the Taliban this would send out a message to the world... British, American and Muslim forces working together to kill the taliban threat.

Sorry got off track a little. Although I believe it does make my point. I'm sure you'll disagree but I believe disarming the citizens of America (wow, what a statement) would be a big step in total world disarmament.
Click to expand...
to some extent i do agree, we are on a semi-unique track in the world today but i also don't think we really make "progress"; at least not the way you like to think we do.

with each passing generation we lose a bit of the of the tragedy of the holocaust. we recall the War of Northern Aggression (U.S. federal history books call it the civil war) with a bit less horror. the cries of a mother finding her child as nothing more than a shadow in Nagasaki become a bit less profound.

we forget and so we repeat the same lessons. war has never "solved" anything (i'm talking about "solved" in the mathematical sense - providing a logical termination. yes, it does often save lives and prevent more death but it's temporary.), yet we continue to fight wars. war and the tools of war top the budgets of all the major countries.

this is why i am diligent. am i a "survivalist"? maybe so.. that would depend on your definition. i think we all are to some extent.

yes, we do have some part in the government but things are deteriorating quickly. just in our lifetimes' things have changed drastically.


oh, i couldn't agree more about Pakistan. they are the ones who tipped OBL off to the tomahawk strike that Clinton attempted, they are not our friends but if we don't act soon they will also not be so docile.





.
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
matias2911 said:
I really enjoy reading your posts 7X, I mean it in a good way, your arguments are valid every time, yet I do not seem to agree with them. How can you (I would say dare you, but im afraid of being taxed as childish...) say that we ''the neutered countries'' have no means to revolt?? ''we'' invented the term for christs sake.
Are you implying that guns (objects!) are the only means for free people to revolt? Are you contradicting yourself?In any case I feel very sad for you. You put your system in place without guns but with thoughts (thank god ) And yes, guns were there to defend your constitutional cause. If our countries were so ''neutered'', why all the social protest
(yes, our voice can be heard too, it can be louder than gunshots.Llook at the French (aren't they a pain lol), if you want a clear example, no one shouts more than the french, they have countless times, immobilized their country completely in order to create social conscience and change.)
Violent Civil War in Latin America didnt bring much change to these countries (needless to say most of them are still up to their necks in deep shite.) I can name hundreds of other examples were armed violence was not effective.
Neutered countries....
Click to expand...

thank you, i am glad you find my posts to be solid. i have never been one to say anything that did not come from inside me and i have never been one to ignore an opposing view.

being disarmed you have no means of carrying out any effective opposition to any force which is armed. you have, as you say, "terms" but you have no "means". you can go in the streets and hold signs, burn property, throw rocks, etc. but these things will not dissuade a dictator from having his way with you. this is what i mean. in neutered countries there is no balance of power, no check system and therefor no true citizens; only a working mass to placate and manipulate as needed.

armed conflict itself is not the thing to look at here, it's the capacity of the citizens to carry out armed conflict. this means the government is dealing with a responsible citizenry, a citizenry which is capable of taking action. that makes it much more compelling for rulers to be responsible, don't you think?


you really think the french people going on "strike" has changed anything for them? what did they achieve, a small raise in their heavily taxed pay? did they get cheaper public housing? it doesn't matter, their socialist system feeds on itself so the people still pay exactly what they did before and they have no more money in their pockets at the end of the month.





.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
skunkushybrid said:
Good to see you back med'.

I'll agree that nut cases and criminals are the problem. Yet surely it doesn't help matters when they have access to guns. A gun is only any good against an unarmed man or someone you have the draw on.

So med', if you were to hand in your guns your greatest fear is that you would be raped and pillaged by gangs of marauding criminals. That is very funny. The fact that without your gun you consider yourself defenceless. What is stopping gangs of marauding criminals from raping and pillaging me? I don't have a gun.

If you take the guns out of the hands of the citizens you take it out of the hands of the nutcases (that's a surety) and the types of criminals that are so poor they need to break into people's homes. You will be on an equal footing, although this is really what you're afraid of.

Guns will not be prohibited this time. Maybe not even the next, or even if there were to be a whole classroom of 5 year olds slaughtered... but one day you guys ARE going to wisen up.
Click to expand...
Look, in your country you gave up your guns after WWII, even though that was the precursor to hitlers takeover, you guys didn't learn a thing. In this country, we used guns to get away from your country and start our own (I realize this is a can of worms as the Indians already owned it). Now we have about 2/3 of the country having firearms, both legal and criminal. If the legal gun owners gave up their guns, do you actually think the criminals would? We have home invasions even now with the unknown factor of homeowners having guns. How many more could you expect if the crooks knew there were none. As far as cops protecting you, thats a laugh. With the tensions in the world as they are today, I"m sure there will be a few more nutcases commiting mayhem. You can't stop every one of them. While we were lamenting over the 33 that died in VT, 3-5 hundred died in Iraq, isn't that just as insane. I'll not give up my guns, and if some Idiot stomps in my front door and isn't a cop, he's going out with a little extra weight, lead weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top