Easier to Kill w/ a Gun Than W/out a Gun

I see that you can’t have a civil discussion.

Why is that some people have to resort to name calling? I’ve been nothing but polite, as I see disagreement and the resulting debates as one of our greatest freedoms.

Once again, I agree, the date is meaningless, and it does not affect my point at all.

“Gun legislation has little affect on gun availability to criminals” is still a valid point.

Although it doesn’t affect my point, I would like you to direct me to the legislation that says that prior to the Firearms Amendment Act in 1997 you couldn’t own a handgun.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
The reason that the legislation had no effect was that no-one had guns before the legislation you dullard. I keep pointing this out and you can’t seem to get your head round it.

People were not handing in guns in 97 because they didn’t have them before that.

The date is meaningless. The legislation in place before 97 meant that you couldn’t have a gun in your house for self defence. Therefore you have to look to something else to build your argument.

Ok, is that clear or do you need pictures?

I need pictures for this, Cock wrote:

…You can still own a gun in the UK with a license, to get a license you need to show that you are responsible and that you have a need for the gun…

Now which is it?

“no-one had guns before the legislation” (or after)

OR

“You can still own a gun in the UK with a license, to get a license you need to show that you are responsible and that you have a need for the gun”

Straighten out your argument because it obviously is infused with some cheap mescale. You’re stumble-bumblin’ around here.[/quote]

No confusion here. Technically under the law you can still own a gun (though in practice it is virtually impossible) and this has not really changed in a number of years. Effectively no-one has legally owned guns now, this was the same in 96 before the latest legislation.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…You can still own a gun in the UK with a license, to get a license you need to show that you are responsible and that you have a need for the gun…

Common citizen legally procuring handgun for personal self defense in Britain = Camel passing through the eye of a needle.

Common criminals on the other hand, no problem. The gun of choice is the Russian made Baikal.

I love how the writer of this piece keeps referring to the Baikal automatic pistol as a “revolver.” People who don’t know what they’re talking about really shouldn’t be allowed to report the news.[/quote]

This part of the article directly relates to what I wrote earlier about gun control making the police less effective.

“No one has been charged with the murder of the 17-year-old in February 2007. Few witnesses have come forward with information, and the gun that killed the trainee electrician has not been found.”

Even though the murder was committed in front of hundreds of witnesses very few have come forward. Because they don’t want to put their lives in jeopardy. Witness intimidation is a huge problem in Britain today. Because witnesses cannot legally protect themselves from retaliation from armed gangs.

not a game, but the comment about being able to buy a gun was pointing out how the legislation is. You can have a gun if you can prove you need it, but other than sport use in a very controlled manner, they will not accept anything as a need.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Either you don’t know what are you talking about or you are just a liar. Because the 1997 gun control act was one of the first things Nulabour did when they came to power.

Since then they have steadily been ratcheting up the apparatus of a police state. Which disproves your argument that the right to own guns isn’t an impediment to governmental tyranny, because Nulabour certainly thought they were.

Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 - Wikipedia

The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 was the second of two Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1997 that amended the regulation of firearms within the United Kingdom. The other Act was the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It was introduced by the new Labour government of Tony Blair.

No, you don’t know what you are talking about, effectively you could not own a handgun in the UK before teh regulation in 1997, the only real exception was sports shooting and museum type collectors.

The new regulation made no real terms change to the amount of hand guns in circulation in the UK because people didn’t have them before that date.

Handguns are virtually impossible for the average person to own.

I know, and this was the case before the 1997 change to the law.[/quote]

No. People could legally own handguns before 1997. [quote]

Self defense is the most important reason of all to own a gun. The British saying that self defense is not a reason to own a gun just shows how out of touch with reality the British are.

This is the funemental argument that we have been talking about all along. You beleive this to be true, I do not. Possibly it is you that is out of touch because the majority of the world holds a different view to you.[/quote]

Self defense is a basic human right. Your refusal to accept that shows just how twisted and out of touch your thinking is.

You arrogant sod. How dare you presume that you speak for the majority of people in this world.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

I love how the writer of this piece keeps referring to the Baikal automatic pistol as a “revolver.” People who don’t know what they’re talking about really shouldn’t be allowed to report the news.

Don’t know about the US but if you stopped all the journalists in the UK from writing about things they don’t know about, the papers would be pretty empty.

This is an article in a national paper talking about how shocking two gang on gang shootings in 18 months are. I would guess that in many cities in the US this wouldn’t even make a local paper.[/quote]

There have been a lot more gang related killings in Britain than that.

Someone shooting a kid in a crowded skating rink would make the news in Detroit.

There are quite a few suburbs surrounding Detroit where violent crime rarely happens. If you had any honesty and a brain you would accept that fact and quit fronting.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i would think that if one lived in a country where you run the risk of a violent death or serious physical harm each day, or where the expectation of this is present, personal protection in the form of a concealed weapon is the wisest thing…

…that i personally would never want to live in a country like that is another matter…[/quote]

Do you mean like this?

Scars of the girl beaten for being English in Scotland

This young woman was viciously assaulted in Scotland because she has an English accent.

Lucy Newman, 22, was left with two black eyes and a broken cheekbone after a night out with friends in Aberdeen.

The beauty therapist, who is 5ft 3in tall, said: 'Two guys walked past and shouted something about the English.

‘I didn’t think it was aimed at me until one of them whacked me right in the face. The next thing I was lying on the ground with blood pouring from my head.’

Lucy Newman was left with a broken cheekbone and severed nerves behind her eye after she was punched by a stranger in an unprovoked attack

It is feared that she might not fully regain sight in her left eye, which was left swollen shut by the attack.

Her father Leslie said his daughter was ‘unrecognisable’ when she arrived at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in an ambulance.

Doctors will assess this week whether Miss Newman, from Gourdon near Aberdeen, needs facial plastic surgery.

Grampian Police, who have been unable to locate CCTV footage of the attack, said such incidents were not uncommon.

‘Whilst this is clearly a despicable act, it is still unfortunately not uncommon for racially motivated incidents to take place,’ Sergeant David Forsyth said.

Shit like this is commonplace in Britain thanks to people like Cockney Blue. Violent crime like this is very common in Britain because the criminals have no fear of arrest. In Britain it open season on women and this is the way that scum like Cockney Blue like it.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

That’s gun control in a nutshell: the idea that your 135-lb. wife has the right to fistfight with her 250-lb. attacker. It must really suck to walk the streets in Britain if you’re not big and strong…

The majority of street violence in the UK is between 18-24 men. Your 135lb woman example is fear mongering, and what happens if the 250lb attacker has a legally bought firearm and a criminal mentality where has already crossed the line and is totally happy with attacking someone. The 135lb woman is still at a total disadvantage but now she risks being shot into the bargain.[/quote]

Bollox! Britain is very dangerous for women. My mother has been assaulted several times on the street, my 85 year old aunt got a beat down last year and my grandmother was beat up in her own home.

Your rationalizations are absolute bullshit.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

That’s gun control in a nutshell: the idea that your 135-lb. wife has the right to fistfight with her 250-lb. attacker. It must really suck to walk the streets in Britain if you’re not big and strong…

The majority of street violence in the UK is between 18-24 men. Your 135lb woman example is fear mongering, and what happens if the 250lb attacker has a legally bought firearm and a criminal mentality where has already crossed the line and is totally happy with attacking someone. The 135lb woman is still at a total disadvantage but now she risks being shot into the bargain.

Bollox! Britain is very dangerous for women. My mother has been assaulted several times on the street, my 85 year old aunt got a beat down last year and my grandmother was beat up in her own home.

Your rationalizations are absolute bullshit. [/quote]

Bet that wouldn’t have happened if they had a gun on hand.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.[/quote]

More of less? Which is it? Either people have a right to protect themselves, or they don’t.

It seems that you are saying that government’s role of protecting the general public from potential risk of misuse of guns trumps the individual right to self defense. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, it codifies the priority of the individual right to self defense.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You’re quite the dancer.[/quote]

Being an Englishman in Mexico I can assure you that I am reminded on a regular basis quite how bad a dancer I am.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

That’s gun control in a nutshell: the idea that your 135-lb. wife has the right to fistfight with her 250-lb. attacker. It must really suck to walk the streets in Britain if you’re not big and strong…

The majority of street violence in the UK is between 18-24 men. Your 135lb woman example is fear mongering, and what happens if the 250lb attacker has a legally bought firearm and a criminal mentality where has already crossed the line and is totally happy with attacking someone. The 135lb woman is still at a total disadvantage but now she risks being shot into the bargain.

Bollox! Britain is very dangerous for women. My mother has been assaulted several times on the street, my 85 year old aunt got a beat down last year and my grandmother was beat up in her own home.

Your rationalizations are absolute bullshit. [/quote]

Absolutely no offence intended to your family but they might want to look into why they are getting into so many violent situations. This is by no means normal in the UK.

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.

More of less? Which is it? Either people have a right to protect themselves, or they don’t.

It seems that you are saying that government’s role of protecting the general public from potential risk of misuse of guns trumps the individual right to self defense. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, it codifies the priority of the individual right to self defense.

[/quote]

As I stated earlier it is impossible to write a list of human rights that applies in all situations. Outside of rare situations though I would agree that an individual has the right to defend themselves.

And yes, to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

That’s gun control in a nutshell: the idea that your 135-lb. wife has the right to fistfight with her 250-lb. attacker. It must really suck to walk the streets in Britain if you’re not big and strong…

The majority of street violence in the UK is between 18-24 men. Your 135lb woman example is fear mongering, and what happens if the 250lb attacker has a legally bought firearm and a criminal mentality where has already crossed the line and is totally happy with attacking someone. The 135lb woman is still at a total disadvantage but now she risks being shot into the bargain.

Bollox! Britain is very dangerous for women. My mother has been assaulted several times on the street, my 85 year old aunt got a beat down last year and my grandmother was beat up in her own home.

Your rationalizations are absolute bullshit.

Bet that wouldn’t have happened if they had a gun on hand.[/quote]

Part of the point that I was trying to make is that random violence in Britain is quite common. But many Brits try to put up this front that because the number of people who get shot is low that Britain is somehow safe.

What you do see in Britain is other types of violence. Two of Britain’s most popular national past times are Glassing and Happy Slapping.

Glassing which is very common involves breaking a bottle or a glass and then repeatedly jamming the jagged glass into someones face so they are permanently disfigured. The provocation for such a vicious attack can be merely bumping into someone in a crowded pub. In America glassing is not as common because people know better.

Then there is the British sport known as happy slapping. What this involves is a group of people attacking someone and beating them to the ground. Then they take turns kicking their victims head like it’s a soccer ball. A lot of people have died from this.

One was a family man named Gary Newlove, he confronted a group of teenagers who vandalized his car so his family had to helplessly watch him kicked to death in their driveway. In America housewives can defend their family which the British think is terrible.

The sentences the killers got were a joke. The leader of the attack got 17 years and is appealing because it exceeds the sentencing guidelines.

One of the gang who kicked father-of-three Garry Newlove to death is considering an appeal against his conviction and his 17 year jail sentence, his solicitor has said.

Adam Swellings, 19, from Crewe, was jailed for life with a recommendation he serve a minimum of 17 years, for a killing that sparked outrage and a national debate about Britain?s yob culture.

Patrick Heald, Swellings’ solicitor, said however that the term had gone beyond parliament’s recommended tariff of 15 years for similar crimes.

The British have made a mess of their own country but stubbornly refuse to admit it. Then we get British twats like Cockney Blue who want to spread British stupidity to other countries. Then they wonder why we get annoyed at their bullshit.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.

More of less? Which is it? Either people have a right to protect themselves, or they don’t.

It seems that you are saying that government’s role of protecting the general public from potential risk of misuse of guns trumps the individual right to self defense. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, it codifies the priority of the individual right to self defense.

As I stated earlier it is impossible to right a list of human rights that applies in all situations. Outside of rare situations though I would agree that an individual has the right to defend themselves.

And yes, to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.[/quote]

Star Trek is a fucking TV show you twit. There are no rights for a group, only individuaL rights.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.

More of less? Which is it? Either people have a right to protect themselves, or they don’t.

It seems that you are saying that government’s role of protecting the general public from potential risk of misuse of guns trumps the individual right to self defense. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, it codifies the priority of the individual right to self defense.

As I stated earlier it is impossible to right a list of human rights that applies in all situations. Outside of rare situations though I would agree that an individual has the right to defend themselves.

And yes, to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.[/quote]

Thankfully, not in the US.

If a statute infringes on a fundamental right (such as a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights) the statute must:

(1) be justified by a compelling governmental interest,
(2) the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and
(3) the law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

The burden is on the government to prove each prong.

By the way, I didn’t ask for a list of human rights that applies in all situations. I asked whether people have a right to protect themselves, or not. By protect, I mean defend oneself or others under circumstances where lethal force is justifiable (i.e., to prevent imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person).

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.

We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.

More of less? Which is it? Either people have a right to protect themselves, or they don’t.

It seems that you are saying that government’s role of protecting the general public from potential risk of misuse of guns trumps the individual right to self defense. That’s the beauty of the 2nd Amendment, it codifies the priority of the individual right to self defense.

As I stated earlier it is impossible to right a list of human rights that applies in all situations. Outside of rare situations though I would agree that an individual has the right to defend themselves.

And yes, to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

Star Trek is a fucking TV show you twit. There are no rights for a group, only individuaL rights.

[/quote]

I know it is a tv show, it was a joke you dolt. I didn’t say their were rights for a group, I said there were needs. Sometimes an individuals rights need to be put to one side in order to ensure the best outcome for the group. Otherwise how can you justify locking up an aggressive violent criminal, you are infringing his rights as an individual for the good of the general public.

It’s not that hard a concept.