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

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
tom, no need to call someone an idiot for disagreeing with you. Maybe you are prepared to read a bit of history (written by someone with a particular viewpoint) and then never question anything but not everyone is as much of a sheep as you (borrowing a phrase from people on this thread.)

Still waiting for someone to try and discuss the stats that I have posted 3 times. I guess you don’t want to because it interupts your rose tinted view.

And TBT I am very aware of the various viewpoints in the US, however it is strange that as a country there are so many people who are so attached to guns.[/quote]

The stats have been debunked many times. The more reliable statistics seem to prove our argument. I don’t have to convince you and don’t care to, you’re obviously lazy and just want to argue with little knowledge.

There are serious books out there that come down on the gun owner side. They are referenced where you can go to the source of information. but you don’t wantto learn,you want to argueb

I’m not going to try to convince soem foreighner why I’m right. My energy is put in teaching my kdis what i think is right and pointing them to the information so they can see why I think in such a way.

You want to learn, buy a fucking book. In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob is an excellent book about self defense and the laws in the US. The Concealed Carry Manual is a relatively new book by Chris Bird is another excellent book. Look up Paxton Quigley on amazon.com and read one of her books.

Look Up Stephen Halbrook, sp, or Gary Kleck. Read what they say and go back to your silly wrong sources. See what makes sense. But this will take a little work,which I doubt you like and common sense and brains which you also lack.

Having an honest debate is like having a training partner. The partner needs to be able to pull his weight. It’s useless to lift with a kid who can’t bench 100 pounds. How can he contribute in a spot or motivation.

If you don’t want to read both sides, it’s your loss. I did this over the last 35 years. I’ve seen most anti gun myths and talking points debunked time and time again. Hell, my 14 year old daughter and son can do it.

But you don’t have the brains,honesty, and just plain chops to do the work.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
In 2007, there were 33 incidents involving bottles and glasses, but this year?s figures show the number of attacks has increased to 76 incidents.

[/quote]
Not sure what your point is, it happens, it’s a problem, the incidents are increasing, but the rate of occurance is still below shootings in the states.

No I didn’t I stated that I am envolved in improving the general situation in Mexico. I have no input on anything to do with civilian ownership of firearms. It is not really seen as an issue here and is not something that I have even ever heard mentioned in converstation by Mexicans here.

[quote]
Also Amnesty International sponsored a referendum on gun ownership in Brazil that was rejected by %67 of the electorate.[/quote]

So what?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dude, Don’t you mean “dolt”? I don’t claim to understand the American Socio-political scene so well. That is excactly the point. I have not been promoting gun control…

Oh.

My.

God.

I can’t believe you actually just typed, “I have not been promoting gun control.” Seriously, dolt, you have some psychological problems. You need some help. I’m not kidding.
[/quote]
I have repeatedly stated that I don’t think changes to the law would make any noticeable difference.

The only exception to this was a postulation that if you went to the total extreme of charging anyone found in possesion of a firearm then you might be able to have an impact (in reality I know that this would not get passed into law and doubt that it would be practical.)

Exactly my point is that the issue is the attitude, not the laws or the guns.

If you are unable to see that, then perhaps you need to read what I am actually writing not use the standard argument that you role out anytime you feel your position is being attacked.

Still waiting for your comments on the stats that I have posted 3 times…

If you look at developed countries that are not actively involved in warfare in their own country then I don’t think I am playing fast and lose. I am basing my views on reading things written by people all over the world and travelling widely speaking with people.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So if someone passes a law that says you can’t have a gun, and you object and hang on to your gun (as many people here are saying they would). You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.

So if “someone” (like Washington DC) passes a law that says “you” (like Dick Heller) can’t have a gun, and “you” (Dick Heller) object, then “you” (Dick Heller) sue the government (imagine that) which results in someone else (US Supreme Court) overturning the unconstitutional law. There’s a process. We don’t just all become criminals.

That’s cool and all by the book, but it’s hardly “from my cold dead hands” is it. More like "you’ll hear from my lawyer, something that I understand that Americans say quited a lot.

The great thing about America is that people can get justice in the courts. Thanks to that silly written constitution. So of course we use lawyers it’s much more civilized, old boy.[/quote]

Yes, I agree, but that doesn’t really tie up with the macho posturing of the gun owners when they use phrases like ‘from my cold dead hands’ or 'come and get them. The second someone tries to, they run crying to the courts.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue should have wrote:
…A major part of my T-Nation existence has involved promoting gun control…

[/quote]

Any intelligent person can read what I have posted and understand it. You posting something that is not what I have written doesn’t change that fact.

Shouting over people might be how you win the argument with your family, it won’t work here.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
November 2008 report of The US Joint Forces Command. Mexico is under pressure from drug cartels and gangs and is danger of collapse in the next few years.

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf

Lots of law abiding mexicans are gonna wish they had a gun.

You might try reading that report again.

First page, first paragraph:

‘This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict what will happen in the next 25 years.’

They have big problems in Mexico. The average Mexican is defenseless, but they cannot turn to the police for protection.

Mexican drug war ‘alarming’ U.S. officials

MEXICO CITY ? Virtually every day now there are disturbing headlines here about the assassination of yet another Mexican official, gangland-style shootouts in broad daylight, the gruesome discoveries of kidnapped and tortured murder victims ? many of them beheaded ? and police chiefs quitting their jobs and fleeing the country in terror.

Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed a year and a half ago to confront the drug cartels and take back vast areas of the country that these powerful criminals have controlled for years, more than 4,000 people have been killed. The murder victims include some 500 police officers, soldiers, mayors and other officials.
[/quote]

Doesn’t change the fact that the poster misrepresented the report. Which is what I pointed out.

Unless you are arguing that drug related violence in Mexico City is the reason you need a gun in your house, this is also irrelevant to the discussion.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue should someday write:
…I think I need to visit a priest…the confessional beckons me…

[/quote]

Why would I need to sit in a box with a man wearing a vest to allow him to intervene with a ficional character on my behalf over the fact that some old american duffer can’t follow a simple train of thought?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Still not sure I buy the armed populace keeping the Government in check theory. If it is true, I am terrified to think what the US government would be up to if gun bans ever did get passed.

Looking at Britain we can see that a disarmed populace certainly can’t keep the government in check.

In Mexico we can really see just how bad things can get.[/quote]

Of course, because Bush has been doing such a great job and has the full support of the US population. If not of course the people’s Militia would have risen up and overthrown him.

By accidentally shooting someone, or commiting suicide or allowing their kid to accidentally shoot his brother or whatever.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
tom, no need to call someone an idiot for disagreeing with you. Maybe you are prepared to read a bit of history (written by someone with a particular viewpoint) and then never question anything but not everyone is as much of a sheep as you (borrowing a phrase from people on this thread.)

Still waiting for someone to try and discuss the stats that I have posted 3 times. I guess you don’t want to because it interupts your rose tinted view.

And TBT I am very aware of the various viewpoints in the US, however it is strange that as a country there are so many people who are so attached to guns.

The stats have been debunked many times. The more reliable statistics seem to prove our argument. I don’t have to convince you and don’t care to, you’re obviously lazy and just want to argue with little knowledge.

There are serious books out there that come down on the gun owner side. They are referenced where you can go to the source of information. but you don’t wantto learn,you want to argueb

I’m not going to try to convince soem foreighner why I’m right. My energy is put in teaching my kdis what i think is right and pointing them to the information so they can see why I think in such a way.

You want to learn, buy a fucking book. In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob is an excellent book about self defense and the laws in the US. The Concealed Carry Manual is a relatively new book by Chris Bird is another excellent book. Look up Paxton Quigley on amazon.com and read one of her books.

Look Up Stephen Halbrook, sp, or Gary Kleck. Read what they say and go back to your silly wrong sources. See what makes sense. But this will take a little work,which I doubt you like and common sense and brains which you also lack.

Having an honest debate is like having a training partner. The partner needs to be able to pull his weight. It’s useless to lift with a kid who can’t bench 100 pounds. How can he contribute in a spot or motivation.

If you don’t want to read both sides, it’s your loss. I did this over the last 35 years. I’ve seen most anti gun myths and talking points debunked time and time again. Hell, my 14 year old daughter and son can do it.

But you don’t have the brains,honesty, and just plain chops to do the work.
[/quote]
Even though you resort to the easy cop out of ‘those stats are so stupid it is not worth my time to debunk them’, thus avoiding having to debunk them I would like to sincerely thank you for the reading list.

I am interested to read more about both sides of the argument.

I do want to learn, I think that it is important to keep an open mind and to continue learning throughout your life.

I also think that it is great that you just give your kids the information sources and allow them to make their own minds up. That is the approach I take with my daughter.

Bit strange however given that you are so open minded that you would take the view that ‘[I] don’t have the brains,honesty, and just plain chops to do the work’ given that you have never met me, know very little about me and are really just reacting to the fact that I hold a viewpoint different from your own.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
the important phrase in your quote is worst case scenario.

This is a group that is tasked with coming up with unlikely scenarios that ‘might just happen’ so that they can contingency plan.[/quote]

Well, that’s all gun owners do, after all.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
the important phrase in your quote is worst case scenario.

This is a group that is tasked with coming up with unlikely scenarios that ‘might just happen’ so that they can contingency plan.

Well, that’s all gun owners do, after all.[/quote]

Touche!

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
In 2007, there were 33 incidents involving bottles and glasses, but this year?s figures show the number of attacks has increased to 76 incidents.

Not sure what your point is, it happens, it’s a problem, the incidents are increasing, but the rate of occurance is still below shootings in the states. [/quote]

My point is this. Here in the US glassing is rare, even in bad areas. I have been in some seedy places in Detroit where one had to be on guard for just about anything, but even then I never had to be too concerned about getting glassed.

If you look at those news stories on glassing from Britain those attacks are happening everywhere not just in seedy places. ie This attack happened in Mayfair of all places!

http://www.news.com.au/...5001021,00.html

There is a simple reason why these kinds of attacks do not happen in the US with anywhere near the kind of frequency that they happen in Britain or Australia. It is because here in the US people know better. What I mean by that is they know that to do something so vicious to another person is extremely provocative.

It is so provocative that the victim or people with the victim could become homicidal and want to kill you. With the availability of guns here getting killed could be an immediate result of glassing someone.

That is why you are much less likely to see a glassing in a sleazy dive in Detroit than you are to see a glassing in a posh bar in the ritzy Mayfair section of London. In Detroit you would be lucky to make it out of the parking lot alive.

Additionally in the US if you were to get arrested for such an assault you would do a good number of years in jail. Because Americans believe in consequences for ones actions. The British on the other hand do not like to see bad people suffer bad consequences for their bad behavior.

The widespread availability of firearms in America that so many Brits decry puts a limit on the types of violence that occur in the US and America enjoys much lower rates of certain types of violent crime than the US or Australia.

#3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people

#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people

#13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people

#1 New Zealand: 1.3%
#2 Austria: 1.2%
#3 Finland: 1.1%
#4 Sweden: 1.1%
#5 Australia: 1%
#6 United Kingdom: 0.9%
#7 Netherlands: 0.8%
#8 Canada: 0.8%
#9 Slovenia: 0.8%
#10 France: 0.7%
#11 Italy: 0.6%
#12 Switzerland: 0.6%
#13 Denmark: 0.4%
#14 United States: 0.4%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

#1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people

#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people

#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people

#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

[quote]
Where I get that from is you stated that you are working to affect public policy in Mexico vis-a-vis civilian ownership of firearms.

No I didn’t I stated that I am envolved in improving the general situation in Mexico. I have no input on anything to do with civilian ownership of firearms. It is not really seen as an issue here and is not something that I have even ever heard mentioned in converstation by Mexicans here. [/quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:

“How high does the assault rate have to be before you would allow someone to carry? Give me a number.”

To which you replied:

“To give you a politicians answer on that, I would want to have a better view of all available data before answering that question in more detail. We will be forming a working group to look into this and they will report back their findings at which point a decision will be made.”

You make sound like you are somehow involved with the governments decision making on firearms. Or you are at least trying to be involved. And I might point out trying to be involved motivated by an ideology that will make things much worse for the Mexicans.

[quote]
Also Amnesty International sponsored a referendum on gun ownership in Brazil that was rejected by %67 of the electorate.

So what? [/quote]

“So what” is his reply to an overwhelming majority in a democratic vote. You keep saying the overwhelming majority of people in the world don’t want gun ownership to be legal. But when it got put to a vote in Brazil which is one of the largest countries in the world the overwhelming majority voted to keep gun ownership legal. Which shows that you are talking out of your ass.

I see you didn’t want to address the Rhys Jones shooting. I will assume that you concede that his being shot by another school kid completely undermines the gun control makes the schools safe argument.

Another thing is, I see that you don’t consider the oft used “the schools are going to get shot up” rhetoric to be hysteria. Which is why you resort to it. Despite the fact that these are very rare occurrences. Especially compared to burglaries or assaults. Yet you want to argue that people wanting protection to deal with those types of crime is based upon hysteria and paranoia.

You are a hypocrite.

Are you actually reading my posts or are you just banging your head against the keyboard and coming up with stuff like the infinite monkeys chained to typewriters?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
My point is this. Here in the US glassing is rare, even in bad areas. I have been in some seedy places in Detroit where one had to be on guard for just about anything, but even then I never had to be too concerned about getting glassed.

If you look at those news stories on glassing from Britain those attacks are happening everywhere not just in seedy places. ie This attack happened in Mayfair of all places!

http://www.news.com.au/...5001021,00.html
[/quote]

I take it you haven’t spent much time in London. Mayfair has some extremely seedy bars.

I am aware that glassing is more common in the UK than in the states. Headbutting also seems to be a more British way of starting a fight than in other parts of the world.

[quote]
There is a simple reason why these kinds of attacks do not happen in the US with anywhere near the kind of frequency that they happen in Britain or Australia. It is because here in the US people know better.

What I mean by that is they know that to do something so vicious to another person is extremely provocative. It is so provocative that the victim or people with the victim could become homicidal and want to kill you. With the availability of guns here getting killed could be an immediate result of glassing someone.

That is why you are much less likely to see a glassing in a sleazy dive in Detroit than you are to see a glassing in a posh bar in the ritzy Mayfair section of London. In Detroit you would be lucky to make it out of the parking lot alive.

[quote]

So you agree with my point that in the US, people see a gun as the way to resolve a situation whereas in the rest of the world they are more likely to fight to settle their differences but not as likely to rely on a gun.

utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Common or agrevated assault is a crime that can be punished with a serious term in prison.

In the UK and the US there are some judges that hand out sentences that do not seem to match the crime. This is a problem that both countries have.

It puts a limit on it until someone accidentally shoots someone else, shoots themselves because they are depressed or has their child shoot themselves or a sibling.

The figures below do not equate to much lower rates of violent crime. They relate to similar or in some cases higher rates of violent crime. There are also discrepancies caused by the way that different countries report crime.

Sorry, forgot I was typing to an American. That was a joke. It was a way of saying that I couldn’t answer his question because I didn’t know enough about it. In the future I will put joke answers in italics so that you can keep up…

I haven’t said that at all, I have said that the majority of the world has a different attitude to guns to Americans, that is totally separate.

Brazil has less than 3% of the worlds population. The 20% of the population in China supports communism therefore it must be the best system. (please note, this is a joke, I can’t work out how to make it italic)

Sorry, didn’t see that specific question in amongst the rest of your post. Why do you keep coming back to gun control laws? This is not the argument that I am making.

[quote]
Another thing is, I see that you don’t consider the oft used “the schools are going to get shot up” rhetoric to be hysteria. Which is why you resort to it. Despite the fact that these are very rare occurrences. Especially compared to burglaries or assaults. Yet you want to argue that people wanting protection to deal with those types of crime is based upon hysteria and paranoia.

You are a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, I want to argue that the attitude to guns in the US makes a kid more likely to grab a gun and shoot up his school. The ready availability of guns just makes it easier, but is not the root cause.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think we are all conscious of that reality, as well as the fact that the more “concerned” with “group needs” a government becomes, the more confiscatory, predatory, and rapacious it inevitably becomes.

Protection from freelance criminals is only one reason a free man arms himself. Protection from criminals acting in an official capacity is another reason.

I agree with you on your first point though I can also see from a governments point of view, getting right where to draw the line will always be a near impossible task.[/quote]

Cockney, I’m sure you realize that as long as the government is allowed to draw the line, it will never be drawn.[quote]

On your second point, I am still waiting for examples of how this works in practice. Any time I have seen reports of people attempting to use guns in the US to further their agenda against the government it has not ended well (Waco for example.)

Were the shit to really hit the fan, I just don’t think that your People’s Militia would stand a chance against government backed troops supported by the airforce and navy. [/quote]

You keep invoking Waco, but I don’t think it’s a good example, and not only because it ended badly.

The Branch Davidians did not actually have an anti-government agenda. They were targeted by federal agencies on suspicion that they were violating federal firearms laws, but this was never substantiated. The government fired the first shots. The Davidians returned fire, but were not putting up what I would consider a determined defense, and what federal agents were killed were likely hit accidentally by their own men.

"[The FBI] treated the Davidians as if they were a band of criminals, a military force or, generically, as the aggressor. The Davidians were instead an unconventional group in an exalted, disturbed, and desperate state of mind…

willing to die defending themselves in an apocalyptic ending… neither psychiatrically depressed, suicidal people nor cold-blooded killers."

The Davidians held out for 51 days before they were finally massacred on April 19, 1993. If you want better examples of an armed civilian force standing up to government aggression, you should first go back exactly fifty years, to the Warsaw ghetto uprising on April 19, 1943. A few hundred Jews, armed with nine rifles and 59 pistols, a few handfuls cartridges and molotov cocktails, versus over 2000 Wehrmacht troops armed with machine guns, armored vehicles, and a nearly inexhaustible supply of munitions.

Obviously, the Jews lost, but they killed 16 Nazis and wounded 86 (that’s the official German number, so the actual number might be much higher).

Or how about going back even farther, to another April 19, coincidentally enough, this time in 1775. As you are probably aware, a group of armed citizens stood their ground against an Imperial force who meant to disarm and disperse them.

I needn’t remind you how that turned out.

Other examples include the Afghans, who made life uncomfortable enough for the British and Soviets that they decided to leave (and are making life very uncomfortable for the Americans these days as well);

The Vietnamese, who made life uncomfortable enough for the French and the Americans that they decided to leave; and the Iraqis, who are making life so uncomfortable for the Americans that they are thinking really hard about leaving.

What it takes is adequate weaponry, which the Davidians had, but the Jews did not, combined with adequate motivation to do the enemy great harm, which the Jews had but the Davidians did not. Skill at arms, discipline, and courage are always helpful as well, and the Afghans have no shortage of these.

Are the American people sufficiently armed to do battle with an oppressive government? Surely they are at least as well armed as the Afghans against the Soviets (they had Stinger missiles, we have .50 sniper rifles). Whether we possess the other requisite qualities is an open question. Skill, discipline and courage vary from person to person, and you generally don’t know exactly how much you’ve got until it’s time to use it.

I think we’d do all right, though.

That’s the same risk taken by everyone who has ever tried to exercise their rights to the full, as you put it. Guy Fawkes and William Wallace being conspicuous examples of how not-amused authority gets when challenged.

Sure, it’d be nice to die in bed, at the end of a long, peaceful life (particularly if that life included lots of tequila and señoritas), but if the choice is only between dying on one’s feet, or on one’s knees, I’ll opt for the feet, thanks.

That’s just me.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Cockney, I’m sure you realize that as long as the government is allowed to draw the line, it will never be drawn.
[/quote]

Actually it will be drawn, a poll will be taken, then the line will be redrawn, then where the original line was will be obfiscuted and the government will claim that the plan was always to have the line where it is, then…

But I take your point.

These examples (other than the all round cliusterfuck that was Waco) are all from a hell of a long time ago relative to the resources that your government now has.

The afgan and vietnamese examples are interesting though they are more about causing problems for an invading force which obviously has a different dynamic.

The only thing that would allow the milita a chance would be the governments concern about controlling the press and popular opinion. If they really wanted to settle the Waco issue, for instance, in a hurry they could have levelled the place in seconds.

Totally true, the question is, how much the guns would slow them down. Wallace and Fawkes were both heavily armed.

[quote]
Sure, it’d be nice to die in bed, at the end of a long, peaceful life (particularly if that life included lots of tequila and señoritas), but if the choice is only between dying on one’s feet, or on one’s knees, I’ll opt for the feet, thanks.

That’s just me.[/quote]

What about dieing whilst the señorita is on her knees?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dude, Don’t you mean “dolt”? I don’t claim to understand the American Socio-political scene so well. That is excactly the point. I have not been promoting gun control…

Oh.

My.

God.

I can’t believe you actually just typed, “I have not been promoting gun control.” Seriously, dolt, you have some psychological problems. You need some help. I’m not kidding.

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t think changes to the law would make any noticeable difference. [/quote]

Be that as it may you keep postulating the false arguments that all gun control nuts keep coming out with. So we don’t trust you. We think you are playing coy.

[quote]
The only exception to this was a postulation that if you went to the total extreme of charging anyone found in possesion of a firearm then you might be able to have an impact (in reality I know that this would not get passed into law and doubt that it would be practical.) [/quote]

No it wouldn’t make a positive impact. All such laws do is put innocent people in a trap where if they are under a genuine threat and need protection they have to make a choice between risking a serious criminal charge or getting murdered. In order to have protection 24/7 they have to break the law 24/7.

Genuine criminals on the other hand do not need to break the law 24/7. All they need to do is come into possession of an illegal firearm long enough to commit a crime then ditch the weapon.

So such laws favor dangerous criminals while putting harmless people at a severe disadvantage.

Here is a scenario of how such laws work in the real world.

Let’s say we have a good guy who is poor who lives with his family on a bad housing estate with a lot of gang activity. Since is a good guy he refuses to join the local estate gang. The gang considers this an affront to their supremacy on the estate and resort to escalating acts of violence against the good guy eventually threatening to kill him.

He goes to the police who turn out to be useless. All they can do is have him make out a report so that if he gets murdered they might have something to base an investigation on. Which will do nothing to bring him back to life after he is dead and probably won’t even get a conviction.

So he get’s himself an illegal gun and starts carrying it with him all the time because he doesn’t know when the hit is going to come, he just knows he has to be ready when it does. He does this until one day out in the nice suburbs where he has an honest minimum wage job he gets pulled over in his beater car because a taillight is out.

The cop looks at the address on the mans license sees the man lives in the ghetto, decides to search his car and finds a gun under the seat.

So he goes to jail for a good number of years. Then he finally gets out. But because he is poor and now has a felony criminal record the only place he can housing is back with his family on the estate. Where he is soon noticed by the violent gang he pissed off.

One of the gang bangers decides to settle the score immediately. So he knocks on a window and another gang member passes out a gun to him. The gang banger goes up to the good guy and shoots him dead. Then he goes back to the window where he got the gun, passes it off and he is now clean.

The final analysis is the good guy spent years of his life illegally carrying finally got caught and arrested for it. Then spent several years of his life in jail. When the gang finally did carry out it’s hit on him the hitman was only in possession of the gun for less than a minute.

That is how such a law plays out in the real world. Harmless honest people are forced to become criminals and end up with serious criminal records. While really bad organized criminals are able to manipulate the law to their advantage and get away with murder.

This is why in Britain there are so many young people who carry knives for their protection. Because they know the police can’t protect their lives.

Yet all the British can think to do is assume that all these kids have bad intentions and call for severe penalties which will destroy the lives of young people who are caught up in circumstances beyond their control. Instead of facing up to much deeper societal issues.

[quote]
Exactly my point is that the issue is the attitude, not the laws or the guns. [/quote]

What is sad about this statement is you yourself have an attitude that is based purely upon assumptions that refuse to see both sides of the issue. Which is exemplified by your call for draconian penalties being imposed upon people irregardless of their personal reality, which may be very different from yours.

You may think that you are an open minded, fair person, but in this matter you’re not.

[quote]
If you are unable to see that, then perhaps you need to read what I am actually writing not use the standard argument that you role out anytime you feel your position is being attacked.

Still waiting for your comments on the stats that I have posted 3 times… [/quote]

Kellerman is only an emergency room physiologist. Yet you keep pushing his study like it is some kind of gospel truth. There are some serious flaws to his study.

The first thing to take into consideration is exactly what is his world view. The man is a doctor. Which means that he probably lives in a nice neighborhood. A place where most if not all of his neighbors have college degrees. Where kids are raised in two parent families.

Where the police are bored because they don’t have much else to do except write speeding tickets to people for being 5 over all day long. So when his local cops do get a real call they are on it in a flash and an incident report is made.

My neighborhood in Detroit is not like that. On New Years four years ago when my neighbor was out in the front yard firing off an AK47 nobody called the police because it would be pointless. There was no report made.

A couple of years ago in Detroit I watched a guy get jumped getting into his truck. He wrestled with the jacker for a couple of seconds then the jacker took off running.

As I pulled alongside the intended victim who was running after the jacker I saw he had a big automatic in his hands. I looked at him, he looked at me, I laughed, then he laughed and stopped running. I doubt a report was made on that incident either.

There is a lot of stuff like that that does not get reported. So your trying to quote some doctors statistical study as authoritative is a joke. There are just so many variables in Kellermans study that are not reported with anywhere near %100 accuracy that we cannot consider it authoritative.

[quote]
…Americans (with a number of exceptions) equate liberty to having a gun. The rest of the world equates liberty to not needing a gun. [/quote]

No. Americans equate gun ownership as the ultimate safeguard of their liberty. They consider their having the right to own guns as defining what their relationship to their government is to be. Americans say that their government has no choice but to trust them.

In other countries like North Korea, Red China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Britain, the government tells the people that they have to trust the government and they don’t get to have a choice.

Again you are arrogantly claiming to speak for the rest of the world. We all know that a sizable portion of the world is not allowed to speak for itself so we know you are full of shit.

[quote]
You’re playing fast and loose with the term, “the rest of the world” but then again that’s your style.

If you look at developed countries that are not actively involved in warfare in their own country then I don’t think I am playing fast and lose. I am basing my views on reading things written by people all over the world and travelling widely speaking with people. [/quote]

Speaking of warfare. More people were killed in Mexico’s drug war last year than were killed in Iraq.

I think you only read the writings of and talk to people who think like you do. So it is little wonder you have that view.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think we are all conscious of that reality, as well as the fact that the more “concerned” with “group needs” a government becomes, the more confiscatory, predatory, and rapacious it inevitably becomes.

Protection from freelance criminals is only one reason a free man arms himself. Protection from criminals acting in an official capacity is another reason.

I agree with you on your first point though I can also see from a governments point of view, getting right where to draw the line will always be a near impossible task.

On your second point, I am still waiting for examples of how this works in practice. Any time I have seen reports of people attempting to use guns in the US to further their agenda against the government it has not ended well (Waco for example.)

Were the shit to really hit the fan, I just don’t think that your People’s Militia would stand a chance against government backed troops supported by the airforce and navy.
[/quote]
depends. our armed forces are citizens. who says they side with gov’t? Don’t you think some of the revolutionaries had british military backgrounds? Ever heard of a military coup?

this is not that hard. All you have to do is look at world history. How many gov’t haven’t been overthrown at one time or another? All you have to do is read a bit. I assure you the list is very short.

[quote]

Anyone actually trying to excercise these rights to their full would be branded a terrorist threat and dragged off to Guantanamo (if they survived that long.)[/quote]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So if someone passes a law that says you can’t have a gun, and you object and hang on to your gun (as many people here are saying they would). You are now a criminal, ergo you have no rights.

So if “someone” (like Washington DC) passes a law that says “you” (like Dick Heller) can’t have a gun, and “you” (Dick Heller) object, then “you” (Dick Heller) sue the government (imagine that) which results in someone else (US Supreme Court) overturning the unconstitutional law. There’s a process. We don’t just all become criminals.

That’s cool and all by the book, but it’s hardly “from my cold dead hands” is it. More like "you’ll hear from my lawyer, something that I understand that Americans say quited a lot.

The great thing about America is that people can get justice in the courts. Thanks to that silly written constitution. So of course we use lawyers it’s much more civilized, old boy.

Yes, I agree, but that doesn’t really tie up with the macho posturing of the gun owners when they use phrases like ‘from my cold dead hands’ or 'come and get them. The second someone tries to, they run crying to the courts.[/quote]

There you go with the cliches. This is typical for you and your compatriots, since you can’t win the argument through the use of logic you resort to prejudicial remarks by denigrating our statements as “macho posturing”. There are a lot of women who own guns in this country and I have seen more than one use a gun to defend herself.

We resort to the courts because America is a country of law. There is no shame in this. It is because we are civilized. It certainly beats the British way which is to shove a broken bottle in someones face.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
November 2008 report of The US Joint Forces Command. Mexico is under pressure from drug cartels and gangs and is danger of collapse in the next few years.

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf

Lots of law abiding mexicans are gonna wish they had a gun.

You might try reading that report again.

First page, first paragraph:

‘This document is speculative in nature and does not suppose to predict what will happen in the next 25 years.’

They have big problems in Mexico. The average Mexican is defenseless, but they cannot turn to the police for protection.

Mexican drug war ‘alarming’ U.S. officials

MEXICO CITY ? Virtually every day now there are disturbing headlines here about the assassination of yet another Mexican official, gangland-style shootouts in broad daylight, the gruesome discoveries of kidnapped and tortured murder victims ? many of them beheaded ? and police chiefs quitting their jobs and fleeing the country in terror.

Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed a year and a half ago to confront the drug cartels and take back vast areas of the country that these powerful criminals have controlled for years, more than 4,000 people have been killed. The murder victims include some 500 police officers, soldiers, mayors and other officials.

Doesn’t change the fact that the poster misrepresented the report. Which is what I pointed out.

Unless you are arguing that drug related violence in Mexico City is the reason you need a gun in your house, this is also irrelevant to the discussion.[/quote]

A lot of Mexico’s drug violence is crossing the border into the US. So what is going on in Mexico does affect people in the US.

In the states bordering Mexico there have been Americans who have been kidnapped and taken to Mexico. They do that because our authorities can’t pursue them there.

A little while ago there were two American girls who were kidnapped by the police in Mexico and given to a drug gang.

Fifteen minutes after one of the girls step fathers made an appeal for their release on America’s Most Wanted, his family received a phone call from the DEA telling them to evacuate their house immediately because there was a Los Zetas hit team on it’s way across the border to kill them.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Still not sure I buy the armed populace keeping the Government in check theory. If it is true, I am terrified to think what the US government would be up to if gun bans ever did get passed.

Looking at Britain we can see that a disarmed populace certainly can’t keep the government in check.

In Mexico we can really see just how bad things can get.

Of course, because Bush has been doing such a great job and has the full support of the US population. If not of course the people’s Militia would have risen up and overthrown him. [/quote]

One of the good things about America is the people can form militias that are not controlled by the government.

A militia system that was independent of the government would do wonders for Mexico.

[quote]
By accidentally shooting someone, or commiting suicide or allowing their kid to accidentally shoot his brother or whatever.[/quote]

There are a lot of countries that have much higher suicide rates than the US. Yet you gun control nuts are always trying to use people who don’t give a damn about their own lives as an excuse for jeopardizing people who do care about your lives.

It shows just how sick and twisted your thinking is. It also shows just how gullible and stupid gun control nuts are to buy into that dumb argument.