Gun confiscation

[anonymously]

Glad to say then, south, on your reckoning that the UK is relatively free from bad people.

People will, if they wish, find ways to damage each other, but there is a myth that everyone is so minded and you can't trust anyone, we call that having a serious mental disorder called paranoia.

I trust that if the UK citizens are asked not to comment on US policies such as this that US citizens will suitably abstain in such internal legal matters as the Lockerbie bomber.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by anonymously

I trust that if the UK citizens are asked not to comment on US policies such as this that US citizens will suitably abstain in such internal legal matters as the Lockerbie bomber.

Sure, anonymous, we should abstain except for the small fact that AMERICANS died in that plane bombing, and that, I think, qualifies us to have a say in the matter.

And it's coming out more and more that this was a deal made for oil, which is disgusting. A mass-murderer released to live his final days in peace in exchange for oil? The Scots should be ashamed and outraged! I know we Americans certainly are. This makes a mockery of the entire Scottish legal system.

Shouldn't Scotland have become their own rulers by now? Are they still ruled by the Queen?

This article suggests that most people over there would prefer they be truly independent of one another.

[anonymously]

Do you mind not telling us what to do with our internal legal affairs. We have Uk citizens shot in US but we are told not to interfere.

Natural Elements
We have less people killed in a YEAR with gun crime than you do in a WEEK and your policies are better. LOL.

Yes I would expect if you have limited laws that with all the guns swilling around in the US more crimes would be committed in areas where there is a lower level of gun ownership. That just proves that criminals are not idiots and buy their guns in one state and nip over the border, unless you now have state border patrols in place, and use their weapons in areas where gun ownership is lower.

A total ban across the whole of the US might eventually get you to something like the sadly high figures we have compared to the unbelievably mammoth figures you have.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Do you mind not telling us what to do with our internal legal affairs. We have Uk citizens shot in US but we are told not to interfere.

Natural Elements
We have less people killed in a YEAR with gun crime than you do in a WEEK and your policies are better. LOL.

Yes I would expect if you have limited laws that with all the guns swilling around in the US more crimes would be committed in areas where there is a lower level of gun ownership. That just proves that criminals are not idiots and buy their guns in one state and nip over the border, unless you now have state border patrols in place, and use their weapons in areas where gun ownership is lower.

A total ban across the whole of the US might eventually get you to something like the sadly high figures we have compared to the unbelievably mammoth figures you have.

You are comparing apple and orange to use your anti-gun propaganda. Perhaps you should talk to the 2 millions Americans that use firearmes against criminals every year.

Guns are your target, perhaps you should do the same with the car manufacturers (there is 5 times more people killed by cars), etc

But car accidents is not in your agenda, I guess lol

Ok let's imagine a second that all the guns are banned, what would happen?

Remember that Police can find murders but they can prevent you to be killed by a sicko or a criminal in the immediate situations.

How do you respond:

What do you suggest if your life is threatened by someone or a gang armed?

What do you suggest if a women needs to work late and get her car parked with nobody around her and a man trying to grab or rape her?

What do you suggest if a few people armed go in your house when you sleep next to your wife?

What do you suggest when a gang beat your wife with baseball bat on your driveway to steal her purse?

Please answer this honestly.

[Natural Elements]

Anti-Gun Propaganda:

“Then you’ll be afraid to trust them with guns or other types of weapons because you’ll be afraid they’ll be used against you.” Another myth—that America has a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns—also crumbles under scrutiny. Lott said that while the overall international data are inconclusive, the facts show that states in the U.S. with the highest gun ownership rate have the lowest violent crime rate. More significantly, states with the biggest increases in gun ownership have had the biggest relative drops in violent crime. Another misleading claim is that 13 children a day die from guns. But these “children” can be up to 19 years of age. Nine of those 13 deaths a day involve 17,18, or 19 year-olds—primarily gang members fighting each other. But pictures of innocent 7 or 8 year-old victims are typically shown."

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/anti-gun-propaganda/

[Allen Farlow]

Does being told not to interfere mean that you shouldn't? Sometimes we have to think for ourselves and act accordingly.

I wasn't telling you or anyone else how you should run your internal legal affairs. And I was asking if Scotland was still ruled by the Queen because I do not know (but I guess I can do a Google search and find that out, eh?)

Scotland has less people killed by guns because...they have LESS PEOPLE than the United States! So your argument doesn't hold up.

Banning guns in the United States is something that will never happen, in main part due to the fact that we have a right to carry arms and, secondly, that Americans would never put up with that.

Passing laws to ban firearms makes no sense when criminals do not pay any attention to the laws. It would only be the law-abiding gun owner who obeys the law.

Like I've said before, they can pass the laws regarding firearms (they can try, anyway) and you can call me criminal because I will not obey that law.

I am not alone in that thinking.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Does being told not to interfere mean that you shouldn't? Sometimes we have to think for ourselves and act accordingly.

Oops so we can tell you about guns can we?

I wasn't telling you or anyone else how you should run your internal legal affairs. And I was asking if Scotland was still ruled by the Queen because I do not know (but I guess I can do a Google search and find that out, eh?)

It is within the realm of the queen, but she rules nothing. Parliaments do that here, she is not a President, this decision was taken by an elected government.

Scotland has less people killed by guns because...they have LESS PEOPLE than the United States! So your argument doesn't hold up.

The figures I quoted were for the UK and whilst we have less population you are not 400 times larger.

Banning guns in the United States is something that will never happen, in main part due to the fact that we have a right to carry arms and, secondly, that Americans would never put up with that.

Passing laws to ban firearms makes no sense when criminals do not pay any attention to the laws. It would only be the law-abiding gun owner who obeys the law.

Like I've said before, they can pass the laws regarding firearms (they can try, anyway) and you can call me criminal because I will not obey that law.

I am not alone in that thinking.

What chance does the law authorities have to reduce people who break the law when its citizens who claim not to be criminals openly say that they will break the law. That becomes a lawless country and takes you back to the wild west days. Demanding weapons means that you want to have a vigilante country not one with a rule of law. How many innocent victims are shot in all this milieu? Refusing the rule of law takes one back to the lynch mob and kangaroo courts.

Natural Elements
What would I say, what do I say to people who live here in the UK? Yes there are rapes,murders and violent crime but I am glad to say the UK population say we are willing to renounce some things so that we don't have easily accessible weaponry, that makes us ALL safer not just the person who wants to carry a weapon. Carrying any weapon makes the person and society more unsafe. When I lived in London some of my friends were robbed and some violently assaulted, but that did not make them nor me call for everyone to be able to carry guns, mostly because the victims recognised that if they had a weapon there would be a small chance of using it and also because having weapons generally in society would have meant the attacker had a weapon and they would not be here to tell the story. We campaigned for more cops to be on the beat more. I think for starters that women would have a better chance with mace than a gun, (attackers believing there is a high chance that their victim will have a weapon make sure they carry one, the average criminal in the Uk would not know how to do that because of our tight gun regulations) but usually people are attacked from behind and are not given time to draw a weapon if they have one and then the weapon is taken from them and they can be threatened or worse with it.

I have no axe to grind, but feel that if the US want to change their society the wrong way is to increase guns, become law breakers or accept a philosophy that things cannot change. But in the meanwhile, like most things, a price has to be paid and sacrificing something that dates back to what should be a different culture in a different age may be that price.

[Natural Elements]

I wasn't talking specifically about carrying a weapon. You remind me some of my fellow citizen in France who are socialist. The funny story was that one of Mitterrand President's son was a small arms dealer and was caught selling millions of dollars of firearms http://mobile.france24.com/en/200810...lcone-gaydamak The funny thing is he is socialist.

Many people overseas think that in America it is easy to access a firearm, that’s a myth, perhaps some people cannot make the difference between Hollywood and the real life.

I disagree with you on "Carrying any weapon makes the person and society more unsafe" It is proven that criminals fear law-abiding citizens more than you can imagine. It doesn't mean that we are going wild with our weapons. So you are the kind of person to pray not to be targeted by criminals, too bad if you are, right? Sorry we are not this kind of people and it is not the American way.

This land has been populated by firearm owners before it was a country, that's the American culture. The colonist refused to belong subjects of crown and heavy taxations, what's why they did the revolution and the French provided the weapons: France in the American Revolutionary War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_...olutionary_War. The constitution was made in the way to allow people to keep and bear arms against tyranny and the right to defend themselves for a reason.

Governments disarming their citizen have no confidence in their people. Before 1939 England and France, and I am sure many other socialist countries reduced their military budget. The politicians at this time said "Germany will never invade our countries" Well they did, and we surrender one month later. I remember that my grandfather told me that in the front lines, the government did not provided enough ammo and they were ordered to fight with their bayonettes, do you know what it means to fight like this with enemies shooting at you?

So if you trust your government 100% that's fine, but I can guarantee you that historically when things go wrong, they are nobody to help you and you are on your own. Same thing with criminals, you are on your own. I know a friend unarmed shoot three times blank point for a couple of hundred dollars, he is lucky to be in live. I also have many other stories similar like this, but I am sure it is not your concern because you are anti-guns.

[Allen Farlow]

anonymously, you can tell us all about guns but it doesn't mean we have to listen, just as Scotland doesn't have to listen to anything we Yanks have to say.

There's a huge difference between robbing people at gunpoint and disobeying a law that says we can't have firearms. Big difference. You shouldn't lump people who are otherwise law-abiding in with the group of thugs, murderers and rapists. But nice try anyway. And many times it is not necessary to fire at a criminal once they realize you are armed. They don't want to get shot (who does?) and will surrender >>in most circumstances (not all)<<.

A gun owner who shoots someone after that person shot and killed others during the commission of a crime is only a criminal in the eyes of the law if he is armed in violation of the law, but that does not mean he is as much of a criminal as the person he shot.

In your way of thinking, a gunman who openly fires on a group of students in a college campus and a student who happens to be armed in violation of campus policy and shoots and kills that gunman, thereby saving the lives of the other students, are the same criminals and that's just not so.

How many innocent victims are shot? Shouldn't you ask How many innocent unarmed victims are shot? People get shot every day in this country. I'm willing to bet that 99% of them are unarmed individuals. The armed individuals don't get shot nearly as often because they can fight back on the same level as their attacker.

And that right there is why we should have the right to carry firearms. Unless you grow up in a cave there are going to be times in your life when someone decides to attack you. Do you prefer that your attackers have the upper hand? I don't.

Let me tell you about pepper sprays (or mace, as you call it). Those canisters operate by pressure inside, to force the chemical irritant out in a spray. Over time, they lose pressure, and it often happens that when you need it most, it fails you. Point a 'flat' pepper spray canister at a criminal and try to spray them in the face. Nothing comes out. That will only make them more angry and cause you more harm. So what good is it?

And if they are that close to you, stab them with a knife. Knives always work when you need them to.

But if they are close enough for me to stab them, they are way too close. A firearm allows me to prevent them from ever coming that close to me, which I prefer a lot more.

You question the American society for being armed. I question the British society for allowing themselves to be raped, beaten, mugged, robbed, etc. without fighting back!

We'll never see eye to eye on this.

Do you realize there are towns in America that have laws requiring every household to own firearms? They make sure that everyone knows about it, too.

Guess what, the crime rate in those towns fell... Like I said, nobody wants to get shot, not even the criminals.

Natural Elements, it is rather easy to obtain firearms in the U.S., if you know how, but not quite as easy as foreigners may believe. If you purchase them legally, you must pass a background check (the dealer just makes a phone call), but there's ways around that. Buy them at flea markets and swap meets, or answer a classified ad. Simple as giving them the cash, and taking the firearm, same as buying a used car.

I know of a couple homeless guys in downtown Denver, Colorado who sell firearms they buy or steal from others. In about an hour I could have a snubnosed 38 in my hand for only $50.

But if I get caught with it, I could be under suspicion of other crimes associated with that particular firearm before it came into my possession, such as murder, so that's a risky proposition. (How can they tell what firearm shot someone? The 'rifling' inside the barrel. Every firearm has rifling inside. It always leaves a mark on the bullet that is detectable. That's how cops link bullets from crime scenes to certain weapons.)

Of course, I could also just break into someone's house and see if they have firearms and ammunition I could steal. (If I were a criminal.)

But I might get shot, too. Another risky proposition.

[anonymously]

Natural Elements, I am not anti-gun I am anti the fear in your society that drives you to think the way you do. I want you to be able to walk the streets as we do without fear, I leave the windows open in the hot summer when I leave the house and I did all this in one of the toughest neighbourhoods in London. I am anti anything that destroys that and arms and knives will do that. So we need to keep them out of our society and off the streets, we do not always succeed and we do have some crime and some people are afraid, but that should make us more diligent to ensure that we are law abiding and we do not try and take the law into our own hands, not become a society run by fear and lynch mobs, where innocent people as well as the guilty are shot. You have not yet told me what you would say to relatives if in a scuffle you managed to kill an innocent bystander or what you would say to yourself when you had to live with that.

Allen Farlow
Yes I would criminalise otherwise law abiding citizens. But we do that all the time. If the law sys that you don't do something and you do it, however much you obey the law about everything else, then you are a criminal. When laws are passed they are for the greater good of society and limit our actions and freedoms. Speed limits mean I cannot legally travel at 100 miles per hour, that limits my freedom is for the greater good of society and gives me a criminal record if caught.

So with weapons, guns and knives, if laws are passed to prevent that happening, I would believe with many others in your society, that would be for the greater good and would limit individual freedom. It would also nake those still carrying weapons people who act against the greater good, break the law and therefore are criminals.

I trust if the laws get through that they will be backed with minimum sentences for gun carrying that are equal to conspiracy to murder and Police are given stringent powers for stop and search so that the chances of being caught is very high. Only then would guns be driven out of private hands and left only in the hands of criminals ie people who chose to break the criminal law of the land. Only then would I believe that the US would have a chance from pulling back from the spiral it is now on, a spiral which has spinoffs in many other countries.

Sorry guys but you cling to the gun like some god that will save you in every circumstance, it won't, it will make the circumstance worse.

And to complete the circle which means this is my last post here, I am glad that I live this side of the pond.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Natural Elements, I am not anti-gun I am anti the fear in your society that drives you to think the way you do.

Fear is just the recognition of danger. You can deny the threats other people pose to your safety, but it isn't going to make that danger go away. People are still killed in your country. The only difference is that when they are killed in your country, it's not their own fault. It's the fault of those idiots who denied them the right to defend themselves.

Originally Posted by anonymously

I am anti anything that destroys that and arms and knives will do that.

Guns and knives do not have agency. They cannot destroy. It's the person behind the gun or knife who is destroying. And the Liberal Socialists are adding to that crime by teaching collectivism.

In prison, a lot of people have bought into the idea that they aren't rich and prosperous because the rich and rich. If you actually believed that, you'd probably be filled with violent rage just as they are. This isn't the doing of liberal ideology? I doubt they came up with that crap on their own.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Natural Elements, I am not anti-gun I am anti the fear in your society that drives you to think the way you do. I want you to be able to walk the streets as we do without fear, I leave the windows open in the hot summer when I leave the house and I did all this in one of the toughest neighbourhoods in London. I am anti anything that destroys that and arms and knives will do that. So we need to keep them out of our society and off the streets, we do not always succeed and we do have some crime and some people are afraid, but that should make us more diligent to ensure that we are law abiding and we do not try and take the law into our own hands, not become a society run by fear and lynch mobs, where innocent people as well as the guilty are shot. You have not yet told me what you would say to relatives if in a scuffle you managed to kill an innocent bystander or what you would say to yourself when you had to live with that.

Allen Farlow
Yes I would criminalise otherwise law abiding citizens. But we do that all the time. If the law sys that you don't do something and you do it, however much you obey the law about everything else, then you are a criminal. When laws are passed they are for the greater good of society and limit our actions and freedoms. Speed limits mean I cannot legally travel at 100 miles per hour, that limits my freedom is for the greater good of society and gives me a criminal record if caught.

So with weapons, guns and knives, if laws are passed to prevent that happening, I would believe with many others in your society, that would be for the greater good and would limit individual freedom. It would also nake those still carrying weapons people who act against the greater good, break the law and therefore are criminals.

I trust if the laws get through that they will be backed with minimum sentences for gun carrying that are equal to conspiracy to murder and Police are given stringent powers for stop and search so that the chances of being caught is very high. Only then would guns be driven out of private hands and left only in the hands of criminals ie people who chose to break the criminal law of the land. Only then would I believe that the US would have a chance from pulling back from the spiral it is now on, a spiral which has spinoffs in many other countries.

Sorry guys but you cling to the gun like some god that will save you in every circumstance, it won't, it will make the circumstance worse.

And to complete the circle which means this is my last post here, I am glad that I live this side of the pond.

I guess you believe in something that do not exist "a perfect society".

I saw some people like this in the Army, they were terrified to get a weapon in their hands, one was in my "Bordée". Unfortunately these guys will never be able to defend our country, most of them finished "au Le Diocèse aux Armées françaises". because the idea to kill the ennemy make them nuts.

If you observe the nature, there is killings, that just the way it is and you cannot stop that. Same thing with criminals, you cannot stop them, EXCEPT if you have the tools.

In your fantasist world, you denied people to defend themself by trying to modify our constitution or spray your anti-guns propaganda, and that's very wrong.

People becomes sheep, and they can be targeted easier by those predators. I am very much for the castle doctrine, these criminals have nothing to do in my property, if they break-in, they will face armed resistance.

Sorry I don't dance, and I am proud to be able to defend my family and myself with a legally obtained weapon.

[Allen Farlow]

anonymously, if you return to this thread and get a chance to read this...

A speeding ticket is not a criminal matter, it is a civil infraction, punishable only by a fine, at least here in the states.

Some people prefer to live in a police state and some don't.

I chose the latter because I can defend myself. I don't need to wait for the cops to arrive.

[anonymously]

Its a criminal offence in the UK, though people do not like to know that.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-lega...l-offence.html

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Its a criminal offence in the UK, though people do not like to know that.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-lega...l-offence.html

Wow. That's just twisted!

Here, unless you injure or kill someone in a deliberate manner, our driving record and our criminal records are two separate things.

As for applying for jobs, our driving records are not needed unless the job involves driving.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Wow. That's just twisted!

Here, unless you injure or kill someone in a deliberate manner, our driving record and our criminal records are two separate things.

As for applying for jobs, our driving records are not needed unless the job involves driving.

My reading says it depends on the state. But statistics say that speed is a major factor in accidents, that often people would be less hurt if involved in an accident, particularly pedestrians, so if one deliberately breaks speed limits are they not deliberately trying to hurt someone?

Bye the bye, why have people been questioned about not declaring criminal convictions when entering the states if the immigration officer has noticed speeding penalties on their driver licence. But that's all off topic in this thread and I said I would not post again and won't on guns and knives.

[Allen Farlow]

I agree, G10. A lot of times it's someone else taking possession of your firearm without your knowledge and doing something amiss. That has even been the case with police officers and their teenagers gaining access to one of dad's weapons while he is at work.

It falls back to the owner of that firearm in that case, as they should be responsible enough to know where their weapons are at all times. If they have to then they should make sure they are securely locked in a gun safe.

[Allen Farlow]

No, someone speeding is not deliberately trying to hurt others. It's not like they woke up that morning and said, "I think I'll go fast and see if I can run over someone today." They just want to get somewhere a bit faster, that's all.

Unfortunately, sometimes others don't realize how fast that person is coming at them and they get in the way. Because of the increased speed, it is now more difficult to avoid a collision.

But it's not something that was done deliberately by any means.

Deliberate would be running over somebody and backing up to hit them again. That would be considered vehicular homicide here.

Perhaps that's the logic the UK used to make speeding a criminal matter?

[Natural Elements]

Here another example of what is happening when a guy is released from Indiana's prison system last year following an armed robbery conviction.

"Schaffner, 37, faces charges including bank robbery in Tennessee; burglary in Indiana; armed robbery in Illinois; and receiving stolen property in Ohio, Price said. He also faces drug charges from the Missouri State Patrol, she said. Schaffner is suspected of robbing banks in Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, according to the FBI."

"He had threatened to kill the children if she told agents he was there, the woman said."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/13/...ies/index.html

Anti-guns should think twice before trying to remove the right to bear arms. What can you do if you face a guy like this without the possibility to defend your family or yourself? Fortunately no one was hurt.

How many people this guy traumatized with his foolish actions, how long people will have nightmares?

I want to congratulate the police officers and FBI, they did an excellent job.

[Maximise]

We do just fine without guns in my part of the world. I cannot see a case for wanting to own one.