Firearms/self Defense Discussion

[Jun]

By the way, there are others whom I have communicated with on here and we just realize there is no arguing with someone who is afraid of someone who is willing to live a slave than to be free. The best thing for you is to never come to America if you are so afraid of Americans with guns. I would rather die free than live a slave.

 

Who's a slave? So by following the laws of your country you are a slave? Huh?

 

Jun, researching Oz's new gunlaws (I think called Port Arthur?), surprisingly seems to have some very positive results, statistically speaking. What I've read, it seems homicides are dropping drastically. It will be interesting to see how the long run scheme of things works out in those regards. Initially, I don't like the idea really, as I still think gun ownership keeps everyone honest. Do I understand that you don't like it either, and if so, why? Rights being taken away?

 

Gun ownership keeps everyone honest? How so? Especially when you have people like Burnedout? It is unfortunate that the worlds impression of the U.S. seems to gravitate towards the ignorant, and non-respectful attitude of U.S. citizens like Burnedout. Burnedout, you do yourself and your fellow country-men no favours.

 

No, I don't agree with people's rights being taken away. I do believe that if a person wishes to own a firearm, not a steyr or AT4!, but a legitimate firearm for recreational use, or in the control of vermin - then they have that right, as long as they abide by the laws in their area. Licensing is necessary. Limiting and controlling the production and availability is necessary. It is there for everyone's protection. I can't see a problem with going and getting your licence, securing your weapon responsibly, and enjoying life in the knowledge that you have done what is required of you as a law-abiding safety conscious citizen.

 

I'm afraid he (Burnedout) comes across as an arrogant, ignorant, macho-man child (and a spoiled child at that). A lot like the perceptions that the rest of the world has of the US.

 

Ditto.

 

From Wiki as Gramps posted:

Gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides and over half the suicides,^[1][2] and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries.^[3] It is a significant public concern, especially in urban areas and in conjunction with youth activity and gang violence.^[4][5] Gun violence is not new in the United States, with the assassinations of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and of Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. High profile gun violence incidents, such as the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and, more recently, the Virginia Tech massacre, the Columbine High School massacre and the Beltway sniper attacks, have also fueled debate over gun policies.^[6]

 

The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries,^[7][8][9] with firearms used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005. This makes the U.S. have the highest rate of firearm related homicides among developed countries.^[10][11] Many more suffer non-fatal gunshot wounds, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating 52,447 violence-related and 23,237 accidental gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.^[3] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,^[12] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.^[1] Legal policies at the Federal, state, and local levels have attempted to address gun violence through a variety of methods, including restricting firearms purchasing by youths and other "at-risk" populations, setting waiting periods for firearm purchases, establishing gun "buy-back" programs, targeted law enforcement and policing strategies, stiff sentencing of gun law violators, education programs for parents and children, and community-outreach programs. Research has shown mixed results, finding some policies such as gun "buy-back" programs are ineffective, while Boston's Operation Ceasefire (a gang violence abatement strategy) has been effective as an intervention strategy.^[13] Gun policy in the United States is also highly influenced by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." Gun rights advocates generally encourage a strict preservation of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

 

The gun buy back scheme is ineffective in the U.S., but in Oz has had very positive results. Why do Americans love their boom-sticks so?

[Grandpa Harley]

Neoteny.

[Amanda]

I'm afraid he comes across as an arrogant, ignorant, macho-man child (and a spoiled child at that). A lot like the perceptions that the rest of the world has of the US.

 

Grandpa Harley... I'm a bit surprised at you... but gotta like you anyway. You keep things lively.

 

Why do you say that? Because he stands up for his opinion? One that is to defend life and rights, and to have a balance of power. Believe me, there's a balance here opposing him, keeping him from going too far out too. Each side balances the other. That seems to be all he's asking.

 

Burned Out being arrogant? Well, I haven't heard him, or any other American, say anything derrogatory about any other nationality on this thread.. yet, we are the ones that are arrogant? We generally like and respect all other countries, and want other countries to respect us. It would be nice if they liked us too, but that isn't nearly as important.

 

I don't think Americans are better than any other nationality, and I don't think any other nationality is better than us... even if they think so, and want to call us names. They may not like us, yet we usually like them anyway... although we will protect our boundaries, rights, and lives. All of you can call us names and such all you want... we all tend to like all of you and your countries anyway.

 

what else can it do... paper weight? coat hook? wall decoration? I'm intrigued to know what else it can do?

 

Main Entry: 1pur·pose

Pronunciation: 'p&r-p&s

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English purpos, from Anglo-French, from purposer to intend, propose, from Latin proponere (perfect indicative proposui) to propose -- more at PROPOUND

1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION b : RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION

2 : a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution

synonym see INTENTION

 

Grandpa Harley, your fine country has lots of weapons. Is it their intention to use them to kill a lot of people? Or is it their intention to let other countries know they have the means to defend themselves should another country invade their boundaries. The purpose/intention of having them is so you won't need them, NOT to kill people.

[Grandpa Harley]

It's like dealing with Christians...

 

Maybe I should try words of one syllable or something... Jazz interpretive dance... American Sign Language... Esperanto...

 

However, feel free to defend the child all you like. Seems I'm not the only Gaijin who feels that way... and you'r defending the stance, well, lets just say it panders to the prejudices of the rest of the planet...

 

 

 

You seem to confuse a standing army with a bunch of civilians armed to the teeth... And basically, privately held weapons in the UK are used for killing things... that's what they're made for.

 

The Child did point out my eugenics stance... it's one of the reasons I have no problem with US firearms policy, but I do find the absurd justifications simply turd polishing... no matter how high a gloss one gets on it, it's still a turd... very similar to the justifications used by the various denominations of the church to say why their dying man-god is better than anyone else's.

 

If you enjoy shooting... fine. If you want to kill people, fine. The more the better. However, the reasons given are weak at best.

[Amanda]

Jun, researching Oz's new gunlaws (I think called Port Arthur?), surprisingly seems to have some very positive results, statistically speaking. What I've read, it seems homicides are dropping drastically. It will be interesting to see how the long run scheme of things works out in those regards. Initially, I don't like the idea really, as I still think gun ownership keeps everyone honest. Do I understand that you don't like it either, and if so, why? Rights being taken away?

 

Gun ownership keeps everyone honest? How so? Especially when you have people like Burnedout? It is unfortunate that the worlds impression of the U.S. seems to gravitate towards the ignorant, and non-respectful attitude of U.S. citizens like Burnedout. Burnedout, you do yourself and your fellow country-men no favours.

 

No, I don't agree with people's rights being taken away. I do believe that if a person wishes to own a firearm, not a steyr or AT4!, but a legitimate firearm for recreational use, or in the control of vermin - then they have that right, as long as they abide by the laws in their area. Licensing is necessary. Limiting and controlling the production and availability is necessary. It is there for everyone's protection. I can't see a problem with going and getting your licence, securing your weapon responsibly, and enjoying life in the knowledge that you have done what is required of you as a law-abiding safety conscious citizen.

 

Jun, my post was acknowledging some positive points you've made/insinuated about Australia's new gunlaws. It means I made a concession to your point, but not buying the elimination of firearm rights for the general population. The only thing I said, it will be interesting to see the long term scheme of things. I meant that sincerely and genuinely.

 

Keep government honest? I'm skeptical as to what happens when a people are left defenseless to the group of people who ascertain all the power of force in the country. How many defenseless people does it take to balance the power of thousands with all the firearm power. I think it is good for the government to have some healthy respect for its people before they get too crazy in their ideas, especially when it comes to priviledge and power. Sometimes it's good for a leader to know there are boundaries the people will never allow their leader to cross.

 

You think Burned Out is someone I'm afraid of in this country? Why would I be? He hasn't even resorted to name calling, much less threatening to do anything to anyone. The worse thing he has said is he may use his middle finger. That hurts no one, except maybe only his own position. Why should that scare me?

 

As for the rest of your post... if that is how everyone here feels... then I don't think we have anything else left to debate, do we?

[Amanda]

It's like dealing with Christians...

 

Don't give them that much credit!

[Grandpa Harley]

and the rest... I submitted before I finished...

[Grandpa Harley]

Amanda,

 

You are right. I have not badmouthed anyone's country or belittled their culture. I figure if they wish to live the way they do in their country, which, in this discussion, by limiting or overtly disallowing their citizens to own guns, that is their business. When they wish to belittle my country and belittle our culture, that is when I quit taking those individuals seriously. Most of those individuals from outside the USA who criticize the USA have never even been here or ever spend more than a few weeks here. Why should I take them seriously when they will simply make accuasations on an issue that they never have to deal with if they never come here? The only thing I can specualte is that they are either jealous, or hateful of this country. I can honestly say this, if they were to meet me face to face, they would find I am a rather amiable fellow. I think they would find that I am easy to get along with. But then again, they would never say the things to my face they say on this website. Oh well...that is just my little explanation....

Never say that to your face? :rofl: Bless you child, you don't know the half of it... and the puir wee man didn't badmouth anyone? lying hypocrite...

 

As to the rest... ex-cre-ment... I'd expect more cojent comment from an 18 year old... at 41 there is little excuse for such blathering.

[Amanda]

Never say that to your face? :rofl: Bless you child, you don't know the half of it... and the puir wee man didn't badmouth anyone? lying hypocrite...

 

As to the rest... ex-cre-ment... I'd expect more cojent comment from an 18 year old... at 41 there is little excuse for such blathering.

No, no, no... Grandpa Harley. I think he meant that as a compliment, meaning that you'd be more refined if we were face to face. The internet is often a medium that allows anonymity, therefore I think he is suggesting the two of you would be more civil in person.

 

Burned Out seems to be the one who wants to bring the discussion to a higher level... now I guess it's in your court. How does a 41 year old Harley riding British bloke handle these situations?

[Grandpa Harley]

Never say that to your face? :rofl: Bless you child, you don't know the half of it... and the puir wee man didn't badmouth anyone? lying hypocrite...

 

As to the rest... ex-cre-ment... I'd expect more cojent comment from an 18 year old... at 41 there is little excuse for such blathering.

No, no, no... Grandpa Harley. I think he meant that as a compliment, meaning that you'd be more refined if we were face to face. The internet is often a medium that allows anonymity, therefore I think he is suggesting the two of you would be more civil in person.

 

Burned Out seems to be the one who wants to bring the discussion to a higher level... now I guess it's in your court. How does a 41 year old Harley riding British bloke handle these situations?

I'm not sure that you're even reading the same thread as Jun and I... it's almost like it's a different language... As for BO, I really don't think we have much to say to each other. He knows I'm an arsehole, I know he's a mental cripple. TBH, I can't fault his assessment of me, and, of course I know I'm right... so I'd suggest cordially ignoring each other on this topic. There is no common ground, other than he thinks that the is insufficient license with guns in the US and I agree with him... if only to control the population.

 

I also maintain that the 'justification' is just that... making up pretty stories to cover up a love of loud toys that break things...

[Ramen666]

I have seen into the future:

 

This thread is not going to end well....

 

Burnedout act more adult... (Just Kidding)

[Casey]

Heck, Australia has plenty of rules that put us in danger everyday. How about the law that states that nobody has the actual right to self-defence? That's right, in Oz you are NOT given the right to self-defence - you are required to escape, run or difuse an encounter. If you do use self-defence, and you inflict damage that is deemed "unreasonable" upon your attacker, it will be you who ends up in the slammer! You may NEVER use a weapon of any sort, unless your attacker has a weapon, and the weapon which you use must be OF EQUAL FORCE! Guns may NOT be used in self-defence, unless the attacker has a gun, and even then you WILL be held accountable.

 

Thank you, Jun. In this you are absolutely correct. Up until just after WW1 in this country, citizens could own rifles, shotguns and sidearms with little or no restriction. If such items were used in self defence, whether that resulted in a fatality or not, the law's test was very simple; ie that if one was in fear of one's life and had no other way of handling the situation, the use of arms was justified. I believe the same obtained in the UK as well. Oddly enough, this did not result in waves of violence either here or in the UK. As I have stated previously, the reason behind the UK Firearms Act of 1920 was the UK Government's fear of revolution.

 

What obtains in the present day in Australia is exactly as Jun says. The common-law right to self-defence has withered away, except in the case of police officers. That is to say, if a police officer is attacked and shoots his opponent or opponents there will be a hearing similar to a committal hearing. In practically all cases, the officer will state that he was in fear of his life and nothing further will be said. Not so for a civilan without the old service blue to hide behind. I have also shown that the same is true of the UK.

 

I should like to ask you a question, Gramps, if I may. You have stated that you know a variety of ways of ruining a person's day by the use of quite commonplace items. I don't doubt it; such things are certainly possible and one can be trained in such matters. However, let us suppose that you found yourself in a situation where you had to make use of such methods. Given that under UK Law, anything can be (and has been), ruled to be an offensive weapon, where do you stand if you use some method such as you have mentioned? Are you not in danger of being charged with possession of an offensive weapon even if the law allows your plea of self-defence?

 

On the heels of that question I should like to make an observation. The methods you describe do exist, certainly. However they were developed for the use of Commandos and other soldiers who might find themselves disarmed behind enemy lines. The intention behind these methods was to give such soldiers a chance to obtain a better weapon, so far as I know. They weren't so much designed for self-defence as they were for that purpose and when they were used for other reasons than obtaining a better weapon, they were mainly used for the silent removal of sentries.

Casey

[Jun]

Jun, researching Oz's new gunlaws (I think called Port Arthur?), surprisingly seems to have some very positive results, statistically speaking. What I've read, it seems homicides are dropping drastically. It will be interesting to see how the long run scheme of things works out in those regards. Initially, I don't like the idea really, as I still think gun ownership keeps everyone honest. Do I understand that you don't like it either, and if so, why? Rights being taken away?

 

Gun ownership keeps everyone honest? How so? Especially when you have people like Burnedout? It is unfortunate that the worlds impression of the U.S. seems to gravitate towards the ignorant, and non-respectful attitude of U.S. citizens like Burnedout. Burnedout, you do yourself and your fellow country-men no favours.

 

No, I don't agree with people's rights being taken away. I do believe that if a person wishes to own a firearm, not a steyr or AT4!, but a legitimate firearm for recreational use, or in the control of vermin - then they have that right, as long as they abide by the laws in their area. Licensing is necessary. Limiting and controlling the production and availability is necessary. It is there for everyone's protection. I can't see a problem with going and getting your licence, securing your weapon responsibly, and enjoying life in the knowledge that you have done what is required of you as a law-abiding safety conscious citizen.

 

Jun, my post was acknowledging some positive points you've made/insinuated about Australia's new gunlaws. It means I made a concession to your point, but not buying the elimination of firearm rights for the general population. The only thing I said, it will be interesting to see the long term scheme of things. I meant that sincerely and genuinely.

 

Keep government honest? I'm skeptical as to what happens when a people are left defenseless to the group of people who ascertain all the power of force in the country. How many defenseless people does it take to balance the power of thousands with all the firearm power. I think it is good for the government to have some healthy respect for its people before they get too crazy in their ideas, especially when it comes to priviledge and power. Sometimes it's good for a leader to know there are boundaries the people will never allow their leader to cross.

 

You think Burned Out is someone I'm afraid of in this country? Why would I be? He hasn't even resorted to name calling, much less threatening to do anything to anyone. The worse thing he has said is he may use his middle finger. That hurts no one, except maybe only his own position. Why should that scare me?

 

As for the rest of your post... if that is how everyone here feels... then I don't think we have anything else left to debate, do we?

 

Amanda, I know you made a concession to my point - did I say otherwise? I know you meant it sincerely - we are on the same page there.

 

Defenseless? Defenseless against whom? You sound as if you are living in a war-zone. Clearly you have a differing idea about your government, referring to "balances of power" and their "leader." It sounds like you are referring to some distant time with an empire ruled over by a ruthless king who wishes to dominate all! "Power of force," "firearm power." Are you in a dictatorship? Are you at civil war?

 

Americans appear to talk a lot about war and fighting and guns and power. Why is that? Please help me to understand.

 

Australians are "defenceless" in the sense that guns/weapons are strictly controlled. Japanese are even more so. I don't see either government ruling over them with an iron fist. In Japan, even the police must turn in their weapons at the end of a shift. Security officers are not permitted to carry firearms. And the country is clearly better off for it. I don't see anyone jumping up and down and demanding that the government allow everyone to carry guns.

 

You think Burned Out is someone I'm afraid of in this country? Why would I be? He hasn't even resorted to name calling, much less threatening to do anything to anyone. The worse thing he has said is he may use his middle finger.

 

You are happy with someone claiming to want to purchase unlicensed (illegal) guns then? You are happy with his statement that he will fight the government, break the law?

 

It is clear that Americans can't live without their boom-sticks. I'll probably never understand the American wish to do harm to others. I offer no malice or disrespect to any one here - please help us to understand.

 

I'm not sure that you're even reading the same thread as Jun and I... it's almost like it's a different language...

 

It appears that way.

[Ramen666]

Jun

 

I am on the same page with you and I am American. That is the whole point I have been trying to make against the people who can't live without their guns. I don't know why they don't want ANY regulation and just be able to by guns anywhere. It doesn't make since to me that they care about protection so much, but yet they do not care who buys a gun. They would rather there be no regulation on guns at all and I just find that amsuing and laughable because that is hypocracy.

 

I don't see a problem in owning guns, I see a problem how anyone can almost get a gun if they want.

[Jun]

Jun

 

I am on the same page with you and I am American. That is the whole point I have been trying to make against the people who can't live without their guns. I don't know why they don't want ANY regulation and just be able to by guns anywhere. It doesn't make since to me that they care about protection so much, but yet they do not care who buys a gun. They would rather there be no regulation on guns at all and I just find that amsuing and laughable because that is hypocracy.

 

I don't see a problem in owning guns, I see a problem how anyone can almost get a gun if they want.

 

Agreed!

 

I'm glad there are Americans, like you, who have sense.

[Casey]

Australians are "defenceless" in the sense that guns/weapons are strictly controlled. Japanese are even more so. I don't see either government ruling over them with an iron fist.

 

That's because they always take care to wear a nice velvet glove over the iron fist. And on that velvet glove there is embroidered the slogan, "It's for your own good!" or the like. For instance, you used to be able to open a bank account in this country under any name you liked. In the end the Government insisted on strict identity requirements, "to prevent crime". It may seem petty to complain of such a thing, but the real reason had nothing to do with crime. Rather than admit that taxes were too high, the Government flexed its muscles and demanded these laws.

 

Around the same time, in lieu of a national identity card, the Government gave us all a Tax File Number, again as a measure of control over the population. And there are a million other pettifogging laws and regulations on the books. I mentioned one a few post back in this thread. I rarely drink spirits but when I went out recently to celebrate something with a mate, I was told I couldn't get four fingers of whisky in one glass because there's a regulation designed to cut down on binge drinking. As I said, what did that have to do with me?

 

You may be right when you say Americans and Australians are somewhat selfish as compared to Japanese but that, I would submit, is an attitude that is caused by the control-freak laws that we live under.

Casey

[Jun]

Australians are "defenceless" in the sense that guns/weapons are strictly controlled. Japanese are even more so. I don't see either government ruling over them with an iron fist.

 

That's because they always take care to wear a nice velvet glove over the iron fist. And on that velvet glove there is embroidered the slogan, "It's for your own good!" or the like. For instance, you used to be able to open a bank account in this country under any name you liked. In the end the Government insisted on strict identity requirements, "to prevent crime". It may seem petty to complain of such a thing, but the real reason had nothing to do with crime. Rather than admit that taxes were too high, the Government flexed its muscles and demanded these laws.

 

Around the same time, in lieu of a national identity card, the Government gave us all a Tax File Number, again as a measure of control over the population. And there are a million other pettifogging laws and regulations on the books. I mentioned one a few post back in this thread. I rarely drink spirits but when I went out recently to celebrate something with a mate, I was told I couldn't get four fingers of whisky in one glass because there's a regulation designed to cut down on binge drinking. As I said, what did that have to do with me?

 

You may be right when you say Americans and Australians are somewhat selfish as compared to Japanese but that, I would submit, is an attitude that is caused by the control-freak laws that we live under.

Casey

 

I wouldn't want someone opening a bank account in my name, I think that has more to do with fraud than anything else.

 

Do you really think the Ozzy government is comparable to the U.S.? Maybe I've been away too long!? I haven't seen anything to indicate that Oz is that way.

 

Are you for a national identity card? What would the permanent residents who are not Australians get?

 

The Japanese laws are far stricter than in Oz, but that hasn't made them selfish.

[Casey]

The point I was trying to make, Jun, is that Governments anywhere very rarely state the real reasons behind the laws they make. They usually have their own agendas but they know very well that if they were to lay their cards on the table, their subjects might not accept their laws, therefore they resort to blatant lies and propaganda to get their way.

 

At best Governments can provide for the national defence, keep the peace, regulate interstate and overseas trade, and oversee foreign relations. If Governments stick to these four powers, they are tolerable, when they expand greatly beyond these things they become little better than a legalised protection racket.

 

Both the American and Australian Governments started out small. Then, bit by bit, they started poking their noses into matters that were never their concern in the first place. The result in both countries has been oversized Government and infringement on the liberty of their people. Nothing more or less than Hobbe's philosophy as expressed in The Leviathan, if you are familiar with the work.

 

I am certainly not for a national identity card. I wouldn't trust the present Government as far as I could spit, to put it crudely.

Casey

[Jun]

The point I was trying to make, Jun, is that Governments anywhere very rarely state the real reasons behind the laws they make. They usually have their own agendas but they know very well that if they were to lay their cards on the table, their subjects might not accept their laws, therefore they resort to blatant lies and propaganda to get their way.

 

At best Governments can provide for the national defence, keep the peace, regulate interstate and overseas trade, and oversee foreign relations. If Governments stick to these four powers, they are tolerable, when they expand greatly beyond these things they become little better than a legalised protection racket.

 

Both the American and Australian Governments started out small. Then, bit by bit, they started poking their noses into matters that were never their concern in the first place. The result in both countries has been oversized Government and infringement on the liberty of their people. Nothing more or less than Hobbe's philosophy as expressed in The Leviathan, if you are familiar with the work.

 

I am certainly not for a national identity card. I wouldn't trust the present Government as far as I could spit, to put it crudely.

Casey

 

I see your point. I have little if any understanding of poilitics.

 

Today's news in Queensland -

 

 

 

Police shoot man dead in hostage drama

May 02, 2007

 

A MAN is dead and another in a serious condition after a hostage drama at a convenience store in a small community in south-east Queensland.</h2> Police responded to a call to the Tinana Place Foodworks at Tinana, on Maryborough's southside, about 10.30am (AEST) today, after reports a man had taken a hostage.

 

The man was shot dead by police after the hostage was stabbed several times.

 

The stabbing victim was taken to Hervey Bay Hospital and was in a serious but stable condition.

 

Witnesses said the hostage was a shop assistant, but police have not confirmed this.

 

A staff member at the neighbouring Huntsville Caravan Park said shockwaves were being felt through the community as the news spread.

 

"I heard the police cars pulling up and I wondered what was going on and then someone said to me there's been a shooting so it did shock me," she said.

 

"People couldn't believe something like that happened there."

 

Maryborough Chamber of Commerce president Alan Wetton said such a serious crime was unheard of in the community.

 

"It's absolutely a bolt out of the blue, its quite amazing that something happens like that in our community," he said.

 

"Relatively speaking, it (Maryborough) has been very much low-key as far as crime goes.

 

"Crime is generally restricted more to the petty juvenile stuff."

 

Police and the police union are expected to speak later today on the incident, which is under investigation by the Police Ethical Standards Unit.

 

Foodworks store owner Tony Steffen told website news.com.au the man had taken one of his junior staff members hostage.

 

"He had my young bloke, and was holding a knife to his throat," Mr Steffen said.

 

Mr Steffen said the man called police, telling them that he had captured a shoplifter and they should come quickly.

 

When police arrived about 10.35am, Mr Steffen said the man frogmarched the hostage out the front door and called for police to drop their weapons.

 

The man started stabbing the store attendant, then ran at police, who shot him dead.

 

I might add for those unfamiliar with Ozzy law - when there is a shooting by Police it is almost always investigated by the Police Ethical Standards Unit to determine whether or not the police were justified in their actions to discharge their firearms.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Ramen,

 

You keep august, important historical company. "Gun Control", including registration , licencing, taxing, and all the neat "prudent measures" was started soon after the American Civil War. What for you might ask? To keep pesky southron militas from fighting to tthe death? Maybe to help control the populations of city folks from killing each other?

 

Nahhhhhh... Much more simpler.

 

Really. "Gun Control" in all the forms you seem espouse to be reasonable restrictions on Persons covered under 2A of uS Constitution was started to keep those uppity black Freemen from being able to use their newly found "full man" Rights, paid for by the blood and bodies of the Nation.

 

(If you are clueless of what being a "full man" entails take time to do the homework, see why the Nation fought over this issue, both politically and on battlegrounds of our own soil. You've got no excuse to not have learned about this in school.)

 

Thats it buds, you are fast in the ranks of those people who are the natural heirs of Bedford Forrest and the Klan when you willingly tell me that

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

does not mean exactly what it says.

 

Racist Roots of Gun Control Rather than have you accuse me again of "single sourcing" and not having enough evidence, here is a Google search for the topic.

Educate yourself in the things you think are *truth*. Begin to cure your ignorance.

 

"Gun control" simply is a means to keep those "undesirables" from hurting the majority. Always has been in the New World, both North and South Americas.

 

Ramen, again your ignorance of the strength of the Bill of Rights and the absoluteness of the Founders statements is, well, painful to me.

 

Please don't tell me what you think until you are more well versed in subject. You seem far too eager to give away what has been provided for your generation far too easily.

 

There will always be murderers and nuts in this world until we grow past this current craziness.

 

You continue to bring the VT murderer to the forefront of your posts. Slightly forget he passed all the Brady Law necessitated National Instant Check System checks done by the FBI. The Feds again dropped the ball by allowing sales to someone

unstable and a danger to his surroundings long prior to his rampage.

 

Government you worship failed Ramen. Folks at VT died at the hands of the shooter with permission of the Government you so surely trust with your life.

 

Gun Control... Racist. Gun Control, kills people. Gun Control, anti-Freedom. Gun control, mindless drivel by people too lazy to protect themselves.

 

No matter how you want to slice it, a Free People have access to Arms or their choosing, despite the bleating of the sheep around them.

 

kFL

[♦ nivek ♦]

Jun-san,

 

Explain please if you would, "Why licensing firearms and/or owners is a positive thing"?

 

kFL

[Casey]

That report would seem to be correct Jun. However matters would be very different if the shop owner had shot the hostage taker.

Casey

[Grandpa Harley]

"I should like to ask you a question, Gramps, if I may. You have stated that you know a variety of ways of ruining a person's day by the use of quite commonplace items. I don't doubt it; such things are certainly possible and one can be trained in such matters. However, let us suppose that you found yourself in a situation where you had to make use of such methods. Given that under UK Law, anything can be (and has been), ruled to be an offensive weapon, where do you stand if you use some method such as you have mentioned? Are you not in danger of being charged with possession of an offensive weapon even if the law allows your plea of self-defence?"

 

There's a thing in British Law called 'reasonable force'. If it came to trial, and for the sake of argument, in self defence, I had incapacitated someone with a ball point pen, or even my thumb, then I'd cop for reasonable force. That's assuming the the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that I had used unreasonable force for self defence, accepted the charge brought against me, with a view to having a cat in Hell's chance of getting a conviction. There are numerous factors involved, but mostly, the law works out pretty well. Someone is coming for you with bit of four by two with a nail in it and you break their knee, remove an eye or similar, you'll normally get no problem. They do frown on killing but it's down to the Crown to establish that one was 'not reasonably in fear for one's life' Having said that the law can be an ass. They will nail you for shooting someone, even if they're armed.

[Grandpa Harley]

ID cards are the current Bete Noire in the UK. They claim it's to protect us from Terrorists, yet my MP stopped answering my mails when I asked on the 9th of July 2004 quite how ID cards would have protected me from 4 lads from Leeds who weren't afraid to die... Not even the Police want them.

[Grandpa Harley]

Jun-san,

 

Explain please if you would, "Why licensing firearms and/or owners is a positive thing"?

 

kFL

One good thing. If the gun is stolen (as happens... most gun crime in the US involves a gun stolen from a house holder) the Licensee has to report the gun missing as soon as possible, else, if it is used in the commission of a crime, the owner is held accountable (fined IIRC). A gun robbery gets WELL investigated, rather than a normal one, which gets treated as an insurance claim and the police hardly even finger print the SOC.

 

Further addendum: It ensures that legal holder also is trained in use, maintenance and storage of most weapons... I even think there's a review every few years.