Do ya like guns???

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Just to add, just because a countrie doesnt allow the general popolace to own guns, that doesnt make it a safe place.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/129sdiav.asp

London on One Mugging a Day The British crime invasion. by Irwin M. Stelzer 04/22/2002, Volume 007, Issue 31 LONDON THINKING OF VISITING London? Great idea. Airfares are low, the weather is fine, the chance of contracting mad cow disease has fallen from infinitesimal to zero, and the talented British actors tread the boards of the West End and National theaters with their usual skill and verve. But leave your Rolex at home. At least once each day someone here is mugged for his or her Rolex, and typically badly mauled in the process. And if you hire a car and driver to show you around, make sure the driver is reasonably expert in evasive tactics. Liza Minnelli and her latest husband were recently being driven in their limousine when it stopped for a traffic light and thugs reached into the open window to try to snatch the comeback entertainer's necklace. Liza was lucky: Her trained driver put the pedal to the floor. But others are not so lucky. The papers carry daily reports of drivers hauled from their cars in broad daylight by weapons-toting thugs who then sell the vehicle for parts (if it is a lower-priced car) or for shipment to middle Europe. A casual stroller on London's streets is now six times more likely to be mugged than is a New Yorker who walks about Giuliani-pacified New York. Soon-to-be-released figures will show that the British robbery rate is up in the last three years by 25 percent, 13 percent, and 26 percent. Some 80 percent of these crimes are street robberies. The home secretary, in charge of Britain's police and the protection of its citizens, concedes that "people don't feel safe" because of "the thuggery and violence in our streets." And not only the city streets. The murder rate in Derbyshire quadrupled in the past year, doubled in Essex, and increased by 75 percent in Hertfordshire. In Cheshire, regarded as one of the safest counties, there have been eight murders in the past year, compared to none the year before. But London is where the problem is most visible, or at least most widely reported. Dinner conversations in the city are now dominated by tales of who was mugged or burgled, a topic paradoxically discussed along with the huge increase in London house prices. St. James's in 2002 sounds like the Upper East Side of Manhattan, circa 1990. New Labour London is now Old Democrat New York. No surprise. More than a decade ago, Charles Murray came to Britain, visited its housing estates (our projects) and prisons, and concluded that an emerging underclass would soon make life difficult in Britain, as unsocialized youngsters grew up to become "violent chronic criminals." He was right. Many of the worst multiple offenders are teenagers, who seem as eager to commit violence as to snatch mobile phones, purses, and wallets. And with the rise in the drug trade, guns, once virtually unused by crooks or cops, have become common. Again, no surprise: The increase in guns in the hands of the bad guys coincides with the adoption of legislation that took them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making it safer for burglars to enter occupied homes, a crime more common now than ever. The sad fact is that crime does indeed pay. Only three out of every 100 offenses against people or property lead to a conviction or what the British call a "caution" (please don't do it again or we will issue another caution). Youngsters with over 100 proven offenses are often let off with a "caution" not to visit their local malls. The government says its jails are overcrowded, and it is disinclined to build more. It worries that conditions in its prisons are unpleasant, without explaining why such unpleasantness might not usefully discourage return visits. This is only one of the things that are demoralizing Britain's bobbies. London spends about as much on policing as does New York, but New York has 50 percent more police. The money in London goes to overtime for police who rarely venture out of their police stations, and to pensions for cops with often trumped-up permanent disabilities. There is no computer system along the lines of those Rudy Giuliani installed to put the cops where the crime is, on a daily basis. But there is a great deal of paper work. In response to charges of racism, the police abandoned a stop-and-search program. Predictably, street crime soared, so much so that newspapers serving the black community demanded the reinstitution of stop-and-search. The government obliged, but ordered the police to prepare a written report of each such maneuver, including the reason that prompted them to stop the suspect, and give one copy to the suspect, presumed to wait patiently for this addition to his library, and file one copy at the station. By one estimate this would add up to five million reports every year, assuming that the cops are not deterred by this silliness from stopping anyone. It is difficult to imagine Giuliani splitting the difference between those who want the laws enforced and those who are concerned that the civil rights of potential crooks be preserved by burying the police under a mound of paper. All of this has a cost, a portion of it measurable. House insurance in high-burglary areas is twice that of safer ones; car insurance costs are half-again as much. Private police now patrol some of London's tonier streets. Burglar alarms and other devices are absolutely required in London homes and flats, although the police, harassed by false alarms due to technically deficient homeowners or the poor quality of telephone lines, are reluctant to respond to such calls for help. Whether this dreary record of a government that pledged to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in an effort to appease both the harried middle class and the left wing of the Labour party will cause London to fall victim to New York's onetime disease remains to be seen. Those who can remember the days of David Dinkins and his police commissioner Ray Kelly (the latter now reinstalled in that post by Mayor Bloomberg) will recall that tourists shunned the city, and major corporations, unable to attract executive talent to its dangerous streets, left in droves. London remains a lovely city, with a proliferation of new, trendy restaurants now filling the one gap in its attractions for the urban-inclined. But it is now a city to be visited with a New Yorker's onetime alertness to footsteps behind you on a dark street. The Brits knighted Rudy Giuliani in recognition of his heroic performance on and after September 11. Perhaps their new knight can don his armor and advise them how to deal with out-of-control thugs.

[arion windrider]

to be honest i dont mind guns unless its in the right hands.. adults with good heads not use them to solve problems.. i definitly dont want guns going into kids hands, but who to say that they wont.. in vancouver, we had a 13 yr old shot and killed his young sister, the gun was a pistol of a sheriff deputy.. kinda sad that young kids can and will do things like that to others, and it specially sick to see it happen to siblings... guns should be handle with responsability not stupidity... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-11-2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: arion windrider ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Now...notice that all the protestors dare not answer about what they would do if they were the ones being victimized? Would they wave by to their little girl, and say..."oh well, I guess we can have another daughter later...", or are they saying..."I am big enough in stature that no man will hurt my family...", or are they saying, "I will beg for mercy at the hands of my assailant, and hope he will be gentile..."... Nope...they don't offer their heart's feelings because they either have never thought of it, too afraid to answer because deep down...they love their family enough to want to protect them at any cost, or they just enjoy being on the trend of "Gunz R Evil".

I would fight with all of my heart and with every ounce of might that I could muster. Once I had done everything in my power I would accept my fate. I would never keep a gun in my house and I would never point a gun at another person with the intention to kill or maim them. The fact that I am for a heightened level of Gun Control does not translate into weakness nor does it mean I would watch idly as someone threatens myself and those close to me.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: bring me a spade and 15 people!!! I'll show you easy.

Put me unarmed against a man with a spade and we'll see how long he has the spade. Against someone with a gun there's no contest. One person with a spade against 15 people would do nothing.

But this is a tired old argument.

Again, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the families of a victim of a gun murder took the gun company to court for putting such an instrument of death on the market.

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Now...notice that all the protestors dare not answer about what they would do if they were the ones being victimized? Would they wave by to their little girl, and say..."oh well, I guess we can have another daughter later...", or are they saying..."I am big enough in stature that no man will hurt my family...", or are they saying, "I will beg for mercy at the hands of my assailant, and hope he will be gentile..."... Nope...they don't offer their heart's feelings because they either have never thought of it, too afraid to answer because deep down...they love their family enough to want to protect them at any cost, or they just enjoy being on the trend of "Gunz R Evil".

I would fight with all of my heart and with every ounce of might that I could muster. Once I had done everything in my power I would accept my fate. I would never keep a gun in my house and I would never point a gun at another person with the intention to kill or maim them. The fact that I am for a heightened level of Gun Control does not translate into weakness nor does it mean I would watch idly as someone threatens myself and those close to me.[/QUOTE]Well said, anyone would die defending their family, gun or no gun

[RevRuby]

Originally posted by Vaskez: Quote: Originally posted by RevRuby: nathan plans on having a shotgun to be "cleaning" when our daughters dates pick them up! and vaskez, your language needs cleaned up. besides kids these days don;t respond to just bulk, most of them carry guns too

That could only happen in America because the gun laws are so sensible [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]unfortunately the gun laws are not sensible, i'm unahppy with them, and i'm unhappy with the way guns are treated as toys in america, but i fight one fight at a time, right now i am fighting abortion, so i vote pro-life, that means republican's for the most part, in other words, gun supporters! the way i see it i'd like ot give every life a chance fromt he beginning before we try to figure out how to keep them all alive

p.s. please don;t anyone respond to what i have said and expect me to write again, i don;t like this thread anymore, it's too stuffy, and serious, what was supposed to be silly is now a headache, goodnight!

[ 02-12-2003, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: RevRuby ]

[Masklinn]

Wow wow wow. So many posts in a so short time.

I'd like to come back on a few points [img]smile.gif[/img]

Swords and Axes were made to kill people as well. What is the diffrence between people owning a sword or a gun? You might say that guns can kill faster or easier. Well , in the hands of your average person the same could be said for an ax. It might even be easier to kill with an ax because you dont have to aim or reload it.

Firearms are no different than any other weapon. Take a bow and arrow for instance. They are designed to kill, and probably through out all of history, they have killed more people than firearms! Both have the ablity to put food on your table (unless you happen to be a vegeterian). Both can supply hours of amusement and relaxation! The difference is that it takes a little longer to load a bow. But the effect will still be the same if you hit a person. Should be ban all bows and arrows?

I know a bunch of guys, who were EXTREMLY skilled with bows. They use to live in America and they got slaughtered by another bunch of men with firearms. They didn't stand a chance.

I know another bunch of guys from Africa who were AWESOMELY skilled with lances and staves and they have been put into slavery by another bunch of guys with firearms.

There are so many more examples.

So stop that, you won't make me believe that guns are like any other weapons, this is false.
And if you still think that is true, why don't you trade your guns for bows or axes ? eh ?

About bows :

they have killed more people than firearms!

1 - I m not sure of that statement. Would need to verify.
2 - And even if it's true, it's just because bows have been used for a much longer time. Nothing else.

The point is guns arent the problem, people are. Chances are if you are following the gun laws you arent the type to go on a killing spree any time soon.

The problem is that if someone wants to go on a killing spree, well, if he has easy access to guns...

How would you protect your loved ones? What method would you use to stop the crime in progress if a man was coming at you, and he was big enough to win a hand to hand fight? Please enlighten us, and turn this one-sided debate around.

I would fight...what else ?
But no need to be paranoid. It never happened and it's not likely to happen. Even if it does, and if it happens in my country, the guy will most likely not carry any gun (there are 2 sides of an anti-gun law, good guys can't have one, but bad ones neither - well at least it's harder to get one).

But to protect my loved ones, the first thing I do is banishing any kind of firearms from my house. This is real protection.

Yes we live in a violent and hostile world, but by carrying a gun you don't help.

[ 02-12-2003, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Just to add, just because a countrie doesnt allow the general popolace to own guns, that doesnt make it a safe place. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/129sdiav.asp Quote: London on One Mugging a Day The British crime invasion. by Irwin M. Stelzer 04/22/2002, Volume 007, Issue 31 LONDON THINKING OF VISITING London? Great idea. Airfares are low, the weather is fine, the chance of contracting mad cow disease has fallen from infinitesimal to zero, and the talented British actors tread the boards of the West End and National theaters with their usual skill and verve. But leave your Rolex at home. At least once each day someone here is mugged for his or her Rolex, and typically badly mauled in the process. And if you hire a car and driver to show you around, make sure the driver is reasonably expert in evasive tactics. Liza Minnelli and her latest husband were recently being driven in their limousine when it stopped for a traffic light and thugs reached into the open window to try to snatch the comeback entertainer's necklace. Liza was lucky: Her trained driver put the pedal to the floor. But others are not so lucky. The papers carry daily reports of drivers hauled from their cars in broad daylight by weapons-toting thugs who then sell the vehicle for parts (if it is a lower-priced car) or for shipment to middle Europe. A casual stroller on London's streets is now six times more likely to be mugged than is a New Yorker who walks about Giuliani-pacified New York. Soon-to-be-released figures will show that the British robbery rate is up in the last three years by 25 percent, 13 percent, and 26 percent. Some 80 percent of these crimes are street robberies. The home secretary, in charge of Britain's police and the protection of its citizens, concedes that "people don't feel safe" because of "the thuggery and violence in our streets." And not only the city streets. The murder rate in Derbyshire quadrupled in the past year, doubled in Essex, and increased by 75 percent in Hertfordshire. In Cheshire, regarded as one of the safest counties, there have been eight murders in the past year, compared to none the year before. But London is where the problem is most visible, or at least most widely reported. Dinner conversations in the city are now dominated by tales of who was mugged or burgled, a topic paradoxically discussed along with the huge increase in London house prices. St. James's in 2002 sounds like the Upper East Side of Manhattan, circa 1990. New Labour London is now Old Democrat New York. No surprise. More than a decade ago, Charles Murray came to Britain, visited its housing estates (our projects) and prisons, and concluded that an emerging underclass would soon make life difficult in Britain, as unsocialized youngsters grew up to become "violent chronic criminals." He was right. Many of the worst multiple offenders are teenagers, who seem as eager to commit violence as to snatch mobile phones, purses, and wallets. And with the rise in the drug trade, guns, once virtually unused by crooks or cops, have become common. Again, no surprise: The increase in guns in the hands of the bad guys coincides with the adoption of legislation that took them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making it safer for burglars to enter occupied homes, a crime more common now than ever. The sad fact is that crime does indeed pay. Only three out of every 100 offenses against people or property lead to a conviction or what the British call a "caution" (please don't do it again or we will issue another caution). Youngsters with over 100 proven offenses are often let off with a "caution" not to visit their local malls. The government says its jails are overcrowded, and it is disinclined to build more. It worries that conditions in its prisons are unpleasant, without explaining why such unpleasantness might not usefully discourage return visits. This is only one of the things that are demoralizing Britain's bobbies. London spends about as much on policing as does New York, but New York has 50 percent more police. The money in London goes to overtime for police who rarely venture out of their police stations, and to pensions for cops with often trumped-up permanent disabilities. There is no computer system along the lines of those Rudy Giuliani installed to put the cops where the crime is, on a daily basis. But there is a great deal of paper work. In response to charges of racism, the police abandoned a stop-and-search program. Predictably, street crime soared, so much so that newspapers serving the black community demanded the reinstitution of stop-and-search. The government obliged, but ordered the police to prepare a written report of each such maneuver, including the reason that prompted them to stop the suspect, and give one copy to the suspect, presumed to wait patiently for this addition to his library, and file one copy at the station. By one estimate this would add up to five million reports every year, assuming that the cops are not deterred by this silliness from stopping anyone. It is difficult to imagine Giuliani splitting the difference between those who want the laws enforced and those who are concerned that the civil rights of potential crooks be preserved by burying the police under a mound of paper. All of this has a cost, a portion of it measurable. House insurance in high-burglary areas is twice that of safer ones; car insurance costs are half-again as much. Private police now patrol some of London's tonier streets. Burglar alarms and other devices are absolutely required in London homes and flats, although the police, harassed by false alarms due to technically deficient homeowners or the poor quality of telephone lines, are reluctant to respond to such calls for help. Whether this dreary record of a government that pledged to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in an effort to appease both the harried middle class and the left wing of the Labour party will cause London to fall victim to New York's onetime disease remains to be seen. Those who can remember the days of David Dinkins and his police commissioner Ray Kelly (the latter now reinstalled in that post by Mayor Bloomberg) will recall that tourists shunned the city, and major corporations, unable to attract executive talent to its dangerous streets, left in droves. London remains a lovely city, with a proliferation of new, trendy restaurants now filling the one gap in its attractions for the urban-inclined. But it is now a city to be visited with a New Yorker's onetime alertness to footsteps behind you on a dark street. The Brits knighted Rudy Giuliani in recognition of his heroic performance on and after September 11. Perhaps their new knight can don his armor and advise them how to deal with out-of-control thugs.

[/QUOTE]Looks like someone disagrees with Irwin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm

[Masklinn]

Nice one !
And statistics fit better with reality for sure.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Do you feel so insecure where you live that you need a gun ?

Here's another Masklinn: Do you feel so insecure that you have to disarm everybody else to feel safe?