11 Y/O Shot & Killed by a 13 Y/O

[quote]AdamC wrote:
If the only good reason to allow an assault rifle to be legally owned by a member of the public is because of the possibility of an armed revolt, then I think that the law needs looking at because it is causing more problems than solving them.[/quote]

Yes, but you must also remember that the only reason we Americans are adamant about the 2nd Amendment was because of King George II and how we fear our government usurping power from within.

Even though I believe this amendment doesn’t do anything more than symbolically in this day and age it is still important for the government to acknowledge this right. It tells our government that we have an inherent right to protect our own liberty–even though they could literally wipe us out without the slightest effort.

People still have to be responsible for their own actions and hopefully the idea of prison (or worse) is enough of a deterrent keep them from behaving inappropriately–of course, there are exceptions to every rule.

Sorry if it seems like I have hijacked the thread I actually do have some ideas I want to get across that will tie some of my previous posts. I do agree with you on the fact that there is a cultural difference in that people in Britain have much less experience in gun handling than in the US.

Especially as both countries have down sized their militaries and hunting has become less popular. Even here in the US the percentage of people who have ever handled a gun has gone down. As they have become foreign to people it has become easy to demonise guns and make them an object of fear.

If you think about it though people handle deadly weapons and expose themselves to danger everyday without even thinking about it. I’ll give you some examples.

Lots of kids eleven, twelve, thirteen, own baseball bats. Very few ever use them as a weapon on someone. Why? Because even an eleven, twelve or thirteen year old kid knows right from wrong.

If you go into some of the rural areas of the US you can find communities where it has been a tradition for generations that kids that age go out hunting sometimes without much supervision form adults. Kids that age can be taught the proper safe firearm handling practices.

Another potential deadly weapon is the automobile. Millions of cars are on the road everyday. But very few people deliberately ram someone off of the road or run over pedestrians. When those types of incidents do occur it is usually a more or less avoidable accident. In order to get behind the wheel people have had to learn safe driving practices.

Think about how much trust in their fellow man many Londoners demonstrate everyday when they stand right at the edge of the platform in the underground when the trains come rushing in. It would be so easy to just give someone a nudge but most Londoners don’t even give it a thought.

Then there are the Zebra crossings. Where most Londoners just step out into the road without even a thought. Which nowadays is taking a chance given the fact that there are a lot more international drivers who might not have any experience with such a thing.

I would like you to consider the possibility that most Englishmen are much more civil than the ideologues in the government have led you to believe. I think that the vast majority of people in England would do the right thing with firearms. Just like how in America the vast majority of gun owners handle their guns in a responsible manner.

Unfortuneately there has been a huge amount of hype (which the British government is good at) and they have really been able to turn guns into an object of fear.

When one sees young UK gang members being interviewed a lot of them talk about how they want respect. What they really mean though is that they want to instill fear and intimidate people.

The British gun control culture that has turned guns into such a horrific instrument of fear and loathing, that the average adult Englishman will just about lose control of his bowels and piss in his knickers at the very mention of the word gun, plays right into that.

Gun control is much like the war on drugs. It is one of those things where people want to do good, so they try to do something. What happens then is that since these people are trying to do good they assume that it is only natural that their good intentions will only have good results. What happens then is when something bad results from their doing good they go into a state of denial.

One of the bad things about the war on drugs is this. The law makes it profitable to sell drugs for a living. It allows gangbangers with little to no job skills maybe even an drug problem to make a decent living, especially if they are a senior member of a gang.

If you genuinely want to do something about destroying gang culture you must first destroy the underground economy that has been created by the war on drugs. It would do serious damage to the gangs if we took away their business.

On the BBC a year or so ago they had a report that the UN estimates the worldwide trade in illegal drugs to be around three hundred billion dollars a year, which makes it equal to the worldwide trade in automobiles.

Something I have been thinking about since I heard that report is, what kind of a world are we going to leave our kids when we have been pumping three hundred billion dollars a year into the hands of organised crime for decades.

All this gang culture and lawlessness is being driven by the war on drugs.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
All this gang culture and lawlessness is being driven by the war on drugs.[/quote]

Amen.

Again Sifu, I hear ya, but the reasons I say this is bad have absolutely nothing to do with the news, or what scare-mongerers would have me believe.

It is down to what I see everyday around me.

One of the things I notice when I am in the US is that when people have a fight, when it is over it seems to be over. It seems more ritualised, almost sporting - possibly from the fact you guys do wrestling and the like in schools - I dunno.

Here, if you have a fight and win it, fairly and squarely, expect a retaliation, no matter how sporting you were.

En masse shitkickings a month later. Houses petrol bombed. The lot. And these aren’t gang members I am talking about. Here I just mean arsehole, fuckwit ignorant civilians. If any of these people had a gun (which they would legally be able to get hold of, not being criminals) the first thing they would do is go get it and and head back out to find the guy that just beat them up. I have seen it happen so many times with tyre irons, crowbars and wrenches, not to mention knives - why on Earth would a gun be any different?

That is the reason I say it is a terrible idea. Not because someone else suggests it might be.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
When people had had enough of being denied their civil rights, guns became very useful in restoring freedom and liberty to the people. Assault rifles aren’t needed just for an armed revolt, they are also needed to remind the government that there are very real limits on its power and that it should not force the issue. [/quote]

Sifu, I believe in the right of people to own guns, but you’re kidding yourself if you think a bunch of rifles stand a chance against a modern army.

Buy some F-16’s, then we can talk.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
When people had had enough of being denied their civil rights, guns became very useful in restoring freedom and liberty to the people. Assault rifles aren’t needed just for an armed revolt, they are also needed to remind the government that there are very real limits on its power and that it should not force the issue.

Sifu, I believe in the right of people to own guns, but you’re kidding yourself if you think a bunch of rifles stand a chance against a modern army.

Buy some F-16’s, then we can talk.[/quote]

Lixy, tell that to North Ireland. Hell, tell it to Al Queida. Perhaps the Abu Sayeff would like to talk to you too. Maybe the Viet Cong could change your mind. There is nothing on God’s green earth as powerful as a motivated citizen and his rifle. You cannot win a war without putting boots on the ground. The American military absolutely could not crush a dedicated resistance. In a nation of 300 million, it wouldn’t take 100,000 noble men to bring the gov’t to its knees.

mike

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Again Sifu, I hear ya, but the reasons I say this is bad have absolutely nothing to do with the news, or what scare-mongerers would have me believe.

It is down to what I see everyday around me.

One of the things I notice when I am in the US is that when people have a fight, when it is over it seems to be over. It seems more ritualised, almost sporting - possibly from the fact you guys do wrestling and the like in schools - I dunno.

Here, if you have a fight and win it, fairly and squarely, expect a retaliation, no matter how sporting you were.

En masse shitkickings a month later. Houses petrol bombed. The lot. And these aren’t gang members I am talking about. Here I just mean arsehole, fuckwit ignorant civilians. If any of these people had a gun (which they would legally be able to get hold of, not being criminals) the first thing they would do is go get it and and head back out to find the guy that just beat them up. I have seen it happen so many times with tyre irons, crowbars and wrenches, not to mention knives - why on Earth would a gun be any different?

That is the reason I say it is a terrible idea. Not because someone else suggests it might be.

[/quote]

Good observation. What you say about people pursuing things is so true. My family over there tells me the same thing. If you have a problem with someone they will come around to your house one night with a dozen of their mates armed with bats and tire irons. Where as in America people will tend to let things go. There is a reason for this.

In Britain if you show up at someones house with a dozen of your mates armed with bats and knives, it is a safe bet that you and your mates will come out on the better side of things and as long as you don’t kill them you might not even have to worry about the authorities getting involved either.

In America we have a saying you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. If you show up at a persons house with a dozen of two dozen of your boys and go kick the front door down the person inside the house would be well with in their rights to shoot all of you. If he has an AK47 or an AR15 he just might.

In Britain there is safety in numbers. In America if you come up against someone with a gun it doesn’t matter how many people you have with or if you all have guns one or more of your boys could get killed. Guns are the great equalizer.

So the big difference between the two countries is that when people get silly with one another in America there comes a moment of truth when people have to decide just how far they want the silliness to go one of the questions they have to ask themselves is, “is it worth getting shot over or going to jail for murder”. While in Britain people can get really silly without much worry of it buying them more trouble than they bargained for.

This is why you see a much greater amount and variety of violent crime (less than murder with a gun)in Britain than you see in America. Here is an example of a violent crime that is quite common in Britain but almost unheard of in America especially amongst women.

News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph

Mr Muhammed said that one worrying new trend was “glassing” - women hitting other females with glasses or bottles. “That was something we never used to see, but I have seen a few cases recently,” he said. “It causes quite serious injuries - a facial glassing can be very nasty.”

That is the kind of thing that could get you shot in America. In Britain people don’t have the fear of getting shot, so they feel free to escalate. That’s why knifings glassings and people mobbing up are so common over there.

So in answer to your question the reason why a gun would be different is because you are going to be leaving a dead body behind. In Britain people do have the ability to get ahold of guns now, but generally they know better than to be leaving a dead body because of the trouble it would bring.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Sifu, I believe in the right of people to own guns, but you’re kidding yourself if you think a bunch of rifles stand a chance against a modern army.

Buy some F-16’s, then we can talk.[/quote]

Despite all the high tech weaponry you still need an infantryman with a rifle to take and hold territory.

Look at all the trouble the US government has had gaining control over twenty million Iraqis in a land the size of Texas.

If a few hundred million Americans didn’t want to be controlled by the government there would be a real problem.

You certainly wouldn’t see a Tiananmen square type massacre go unchallenged over here.

Interesting point Sifu.

The only thing I would say is that in my experience, people here will use whatever is to hand. Of course, I am only talking about the area I live in, and many parts of the country (and the city of London for that matter) are far more civilised that this. However, I would far rather that the only thing these thugs could get hold in the heat of the moment was a knife and not a gun, because just as the person defending himself can get access to one, so can the perpetrator.

As for the violent women thing over here, I agree it is a huge problem. As girls in this country seemed to increasingly embrace all the worst characteristics of the ‘lad’ culture, their binge drinking and acting foolishly is almost eclipsing what the boys get up to. It’s really a disgrace in my eyes. And these days 9 times out of 10, if it’s not a woman fighting, she sure as hell started it and then let her fella take a beating for her when the person she started on suddenly had backup.

By the way, I saw a guy get glassed in the face once about 2 feet in front of me over an accidental nudge in a busy pub (which the dude apologised for too). Ended up with a piece of skin the size of the guy’s ear hanging off his face just flapping about and his white shirt umm… ruined. And if that’s not disgusting enough (and it truly was), I looked down and his blood was in my freshly purchased virgin pint! Gross! Bastard couldn’t even wait until I’d had a sip… Some people are so selfish.

Oh and you know I gotta mention it!

Surely that was Sean Connery in the Untouchables!

‘…he puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue’.

Sounds pretty much like how the mentality is over here.

:wink: