gun control

[Hotwired]

Right so the Ruby Ridge incident was excacerbated by being armed. So to restate my point, nothing in the last 200 years since the civil war has happened where an armed civilian militia has been required.

I hate to be a pedant (who am I kidding, I love it! ) but the law does specify devices capable of exceeding 12 ft/lbs are illegal without an FAC. For example, if your shop bought pneumatic is doing 11.99 ft/lbs with average weight pellets then if the police confiscate it and test it with heavier pellets it will do more than 12, and saying "ah, but I wasn't using the heavier pellets" isn't an excuse.

I'm saying it is currently incapable of exceeding 12ft-lb. If it's confiscated and tested with any kind of pellet it will still read within limits.

You come across as wanting to go straight to the option of killing someone who threatens you.
If you're worried about people you elect so that has to be a reason to be armed then the big fat question is how DID they get elected?

If by threaten you mean charging at me with a knife, then yes. if by threat you mean someone saying im gonna kill you, and then walking away, then no. i dont see why anyone wouldn't be willing to kill if they felt that they were in immanent danger.

What if said bugger was in fact not interested in your wallet but out to kill you, specifically. Would you not find comfort in a '45 tucked into your belt?

To even find myself in that scenario I would need to have been physically carrying a lethal device all my life on the offchance that I or another would require me to use it. The issue was intentionally killing someone in response to being attacked to avoid legal issues if the attacker was merely injured.

[pyromanic13]

look, to compare one culture to another is unfair. if you are going to compare strict/un-strict laws make sure it is the same culture.

if someone were to try to mug me, I would not hesitate to shoot them.

in the end you can't control people, having a gun allows me to protect myself.

-Nobody will try to mug you at a gun rally.

[cdheller]

[quote="Hotwired"]Right so the Ruby Ridge incident was excacerbated by being armed. So to restate my point, nothing in the last 200 years since the civil war has happened where an armed civilian militia has been required.


just a couple

New Orleans La
when neighborhoods banded together to protect them selfs.
)was working too good(illegal seizing of firearms fallowed)


The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

http://www.saveourguns.com/athens.htm


"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
Josef Stalin

It's sad that the experts(hitler ,stalin,mao,amin) agree with you on gun control.
Its made their job easier.



click on chart to enlarge

[Hotwired]

So in this day and age of highly visible and connected media and while living in a democratic country you believe that guns as the end-all of arguments should still be kept handy.

I totally believe in not mixing cultures on this but you've just pulled a list of that out to muddy the waters.

That table is an incredibly biased piece of nothing.

[origin unknown]

For people who use guns for recreational use like us spudgunners, trap/skeet shooters, and target shooters, gun bans can make the prices, to own a licensce to operate and own a firearm, get pretty high.

[goathunter]

Hotwired, how exactly is Cdhellers table a "incredibly biased piece of nothing"
It is a table therefore more difficult to be proven as "biased".Second, look at this link http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/hist ... s-war.html
It is an independent work by a guy who has gathered the info.So it is not from a "gun control" standpoint.Cdhellers table seems to be accurate.

What really scares me is that the very people who want to "control" firearms are those who are in charge of the Public School system and American Welfare.Quite honestly neither are stunning successes. Or even successes for that matter.Both are failing and in need of reform.I don't believe that those who implemented these programs can be trusted with my safety if I gave up my guns.

[Hotwired]

It is incredibly biased and if you can't see it then I'll help fill you in on the funny smell coming from that table. I certainly heard something go moo.

You say it's accurate. Oh I bet it is. But what is it accurate about?

It's accurate about the countries, peoples, numbers and the gun law passed.

Then a big fat title is glued on the top saying "this lot died because of gun control"

Oh yes?

Lets take an example thats most easily recognisable:

The Jews in Nazi germany would not have been intimidated into obeying the government by the political situation and then they wouldn't have been taken away to be killed if those gun laws hadn't been passed?

20 million sounds like a big fat number, I bet you could easily say that if they were all armed that would make anyone stand down.

Now look at it for what it really was - a minority population that the majority of Germans wanted to believe were responsible for all ills and were a "lesser race".

You need a hell of a lot of nerve to suggest they died because of gun control.

You might as well say that if the black population had been given guns to defend themselves with in the southern states of america, none of them would have been lynched by racist whites.

[goathunter]

Hotwired, the Black population did have guns during the height of Racial Violence.And it is what saved them.White supremecists and lynch mobers are cowards.They only attacked those who were unarmed.And about Germany.Yes, the Jews did die because of Gun Control.One of Hitlers first acts was to ban the private ownership of guns.The Jewish ghetto resistances were very effective.Had all the Jews been armed, Hitler would have never been able to kill as many as he did.

Any dictatorship will ban weapons first to ensure total dominance.The expression"don't bring a knife to a gun fight" expresses it all.When the government controls weapons people are afraid to fight back.Do I believe we should have gun control on par with Iraq, heck no.
I don't believe people need RPG'S in there closets.But any firearm is an equalizer.And needed to prevent abuses of power by those in control.Human kind is flawed therefore leaders will abuse of power.And when those abuses are too much, the people need to have a tool to restore the power to the citizens.

[Hotwired]

You're talking gibberish. Every armed retaliation by the black community was savagely revenged by the white community many times over.

It was eventually quelled through politics NOT armed civilians.

Minorities lose in all fights until the majority allows them rights.

Back to the issue of you saying that 20 million jews died because of gun control.

At what point of being pushed around until finally pushed into concentration camps (where they actually found out what was happening) do you think having guns would have helped in the situation of the time.

Take into account that the majority of the german population were at that time blaming them for justabout everything including why germany lost the first world war. Also take into account that they were a minority.

Finally take into account that up til the point of being sent to the concentration camps, they were being pushed around as families by semi-military and military forces.

At what point would you have tried to start a gunfight? - remember that no one knew of the concentration camps.

[goathunter]

Hotwired, you need to read up on history.The Watts Riot was not retaliated by Whites but in fact a riot against other minorities by Blacks who blamed its creation on White Police.Both sides were equally responsible for violence during the American Civil rights Era.And I do admit that it was solved through politics.Politics that were spurred by violence.
Would you know something was wrong if you were told that you had to move to a ghetto and that you can't do crap about it? The Jews were not idiots they knew full well that something could happen.Hence the preparations in the ghettos to defend themselves against the military.That leads itself to the belief that prior knowledge of an imminent and much worse fate was at hand(only realized to late).Guns made one heck of a difference.Even the few that the Jews had.When they first had a hunch is when they should have fought while they had a larger population.
[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising[url]

And tell me somehow an unarmed population can avoid an instance such as genocide.Even when sparked by a government?Your arguments obviously don't hold up when you say that you are for gun control, yet you believe that genocides of WW2 would have happened regardless whether or not the population was armed.So why did Hitler first ban ownership of weapons if it wouldn't be an issue.
What nation did Hitler want to capture but never did?Well I can tell you, Switzerland, He never attacked for fear of the militias.Even today the Swiss militiamen who are relieved of duty can keep there rifles.
You see a well stocked militia is required in any free society.As far as I can tell a well stocked militia requires firearms.
Furthermore, my issue with you is if you don't agree with some part of an issue you count it as wrong with no proof.According to you CdHellers table is biased.Yet you agree that:

You say it's accurate. Oh I bet it is. But what is it accurate about?

It's accurate about the countries, peoples, numbers and the gun law passed.

Well hate to bus your bubble, but that is the table.[/url]

[Hotwired]

You say it's accurate. Oh I bet it is. But what is it accurate about?

It's accurate about the countries, peoples, numbers and the gun law passed.

Well hate to bus your bubble, but that is the table.[/url]

The title and what the figures are being interpreted as are another issue and thats what I am saying is wrong.

Statistics can be spun any way you want with the right phrasing and selective use of facts to accompany them.

For example, Heres a nice fact: more americans die to guns than to vehicles every year. Is that coincidence or are there too many guns in america and too little respect for them?

Would that number drop if all guns were made illegal? Absolutely.

What am I not saying? Or am I right?

Exactly what do the Watts riots have to do with what was said about lynching? The example was not to do with civil rights.

I also seem to be being misrepresented on several counts here. Firstly of being described as having agreement with facists and dictators and secondly of being in favour of gun control.

Don't put words into my mouth.

The only personal view I've expressed is not being in agreement of killing someone that attacks you just to avoid any legal problems if they're injured.

[goathunter]

Well glad that's cleared up.I admit apologies if I did put words in your mouth.I don't know about you but I thought this debate was rather informative.It's good to hear another's point of view.
Here is something that I found:http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp
it seems rather neutral but note the jail sentences for certain crimes.I have a hunch that the amount of crime has more to do with lack of punishment than surplus of weapons.If you could tell me what the UK does for crimes such as murder.Lately in the US a lack of proper punishment has been a trend.And is seen with the amount of old gangsters getting out of jail and causing trouble.

[joannaardway]

I've been missing from this thread for sometime, so I've got some catching up to do.

The entire country being placed under martial law? What is this crap?
I can name a huge number of countries with gun bans where surprisingly, they have not been placed under martial law.
Whatever you say, it's cobblers that no guns means that the government will take over. That particular reason is no longer a concern.

You could argue that in the UK, the elected goverment doesn't control the armed forces (offically, that's the Queen's remit), which prevents them taking over that way.
If they tried to do it, that's not what would stop them. The army, surprisingly enough is made up of people with morals. And those morals will prevent the army from being used to place the country under unnecessary martial law. People won't go that much against their moral code.

Arguing that your guns are for use against the government is stupid. One, because no government would be dumb enough to risk it (even one run by GW Bush). Two, because they couldn't.

As for the other issues: I have no problem with recreational firearms use for use against inanimate targets. Gun ranges and clay pidgeon shoots are fine with me.
Spudguns clearly fit within that bracket.

I'll discuss more later. I have places to go now.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

For example, Heres a nice fact: more americans die to guns than to vehicles every year. Is that coincidence or are there too many guns in america and too little respect for them?

That can't be right. Have a look at some impartial statistics

Would that number drop if all guns were made illegal? Absolutely.

That doesn't really stand up when looking at UK statistics:

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. [20] Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[21] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[22] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[23]

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled[24] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

[iknowmy3tables]

I'll just throw my points out
in a fair democracy power is distributed among the people, fire power is a form of power even if it’s only necessary under extreme circumstances

you may have mentioned, but hey look at some of the US major cites I live near Washington DC horrible crime and gang rates and guns have been illegal for a long time (until recently thank God) and look at Texas if a firearm is illegal elsewhere its not in texas and hey low crime, California LA horrible gang, crime, and laws