And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I love this. Obviously the right to own a military spec assault rifle is the hallmark of advanced human civilisation. By this standard the UK is somewhere in the precambrian. Who'da thunk it?

The right to defend yourself, and have availible the most advanced tools for doing so, is what makes a man free. But the point I was trying to make you did not address; that they allow everyone to have an AK-47 in Iraq (in a country torn by violence) whereas in NO they are going around to peaceable people and taking their guns.

Come on, put your prejudices aside for one moment. Do you seriously think the situation in NO has been helped by the fact that there are more firearms than there are adult humans in the USA?

It most certainly has. Have you read any of the reports I've seen of people using their guns to deter machete-armed looters? It would have been helped more had all people had guns, then the crooks would have no easy targets. Your problem is that you cannot see firearms being used for good. The anti-gunners have effectively brainwashed lots of people to think that guns can only be used for bad.

You know what? If I had to choose I'd rather be in this situation in no-gun Britain than gun-mad USA. Any no-mark can pull a trigger. Its a bit harder to find the balls beat a guy up. Even with two mates.

And any yob with a kitchen knife can stab you. Except in Britain, you have no means to defend yourself. And its really, really hard to find the guts to beat someone up if there's a good chance he has a gun.

Its your country. But if it was mine I'd be saying, thank god.

I'll bet that's what the people who had their guns stolen said, as they are now at the mercy of crooks and the NG certainly isn't going to guard every house.
'The police haven't restored order, but they have stolen my only protection!'

Not you, Crazed Rabbit.

Crazed Rabbit

[English assassin]

And any yob with a kitchen knife can stab you. Except in Britain, you have no means to defend yourself.

No means other than the machete, ice axe, and Prussian infantry officer sword I have in the house. And the few years karate, Ju jitsu, and fencing training I have under my belt. backed with a reasonable weights regime. Not to mention the motivation I have to protect my wife and children. In this scenario, my money is on me.

No disrespect, because I am not arguing with your motives, but right now in the UK the balance of advantage is in my favour. I don't really want some loser teenager to be able to cancel that out just because he bought a saturday night special.

No insult to teenagers intended

[Xiahou]

Haven't gun crimes been on the rise in the UK? Weird since they're banned.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's a good way to go looking to help people.



'Why no, this isn't a police state of unconstitutional search and siezure. We're just trying to help.'

No means other than the machete, ice axe, and Prussian infantry officer sword I have in the house. And the few years karate, Ju jitsu, and fencing training I have under my belt. backed with a reasonable weights regime. Not to mention the motivation I have to protect my wife and children. In this scenario, my money is on me.

No disrespect, because I am not arguing with your motives, but right now in the UK the balance of advantage is in my favour. I don't really want some loser teenager to be able to cancel that out just because he bought a saturday night special.

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?

For most people, having a gun, at the very least, levels the playing field. When there are a lot of guns owned by people, that means a crook, even with a gun, faces a very serious risk of being shot - and is at a severe disadvantage, in that the homeowner needs only sit in their bedroom with a shotgun pointed at the door. When you have a good chance of dying, that deters a lot of crime (as opposed to now in britain, where the crook can sue you for trying to protect your house with barbed wire, and the vast majority are easy targets.)

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

When there are a lot of guns owned by people, that means a crook, even with a gun, faces a very serious risk of being shot

Actually, when there are a lot of guns owned by people, and people are actually allowed to carry them around (even into bars, for the love of God), that means everybody faces a greater risk of being shot.

[Geoffrey S]

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?

Just out of curiosity, what is the position on carrying firearms in public in the US? I thought it was illegal, or is that only concealed firearms?

[Adrian II]

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

There are just as many private firearms in the U.S. as there are in Switzerland. However, practically no one uses a firearm in anger in Switzerland (only 66 gun-related deaths a year, last time I checked). In the U.S. firearms are used to kill on a daily basis by just about every category of citizen.

The reason is in the nature of your society, not in the ownership of guns. The difference between American and Swiss society is not in the judicial regime; the U.S. punishes offenders more severely and has the death penalty on top of that. The difference is also not in some sort of welfare-induced criminal mentality of the American 'underclass' since the Swiss have ten times more and better welfare than Americans have and yet they do not have the same sort of underclass.

I believe the difference has to do with the fear and distrust that appear to reign supreme in your society. This whole thread for instance oozes fear and anger; fear of the U.S. government, fear of strangers, fear of terrorists, fear of your own police, fear of the world at large. That is not a healthy, let alone a constructive attitude. To put it succinctly, as the risk of sounding mildly offensive: ladies and gentlemen of the American persuasion, the world is not a jungle; your country is a jungle precisely because you have that outlook on the world.

[Redleg]

I believe the difference has to do with the fear and distrust that appear to reign supreme in your society. This whole thread for instance oozes fear and anger; fear of the U.S. government, fear of strangers, fear of terrorists, fear of your own police, fear of the world at large. That is not a healthy, let alone a constructive attitude. To put it succinctly, as the risk of sounding mildly offensive: ladies and gentlemen of the American persuasion, the world is not a jungle; your country is a jungle precisely because you have that outlook on the world.

A generalization AdrianII.

By the way I don't think the world is a Jungle - is something completely different.

[Adrian II]

A generalization AdrianII.

What else do you expect if we discuss entire societies, Redleg? For instance, from you I would expect a balanced view on the different numbers of gun-related deaths in the U.S. and in countries such as Canada or Switzerland where gun ownership is just as widespread.

[Petrus]

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

Crazed Rabbit

I think this is due to the origins of assault rifle possession.

Swiss citizen are conscripts and are given a registered assault rifle by the army so that they can bear arms as soon as mobilization is declared.

Those weapons are not anonymous as their legal owner is registered , so it is not possible to dispose of them freely.

[Marcellus]

Haven't gun crimes been on the rise in the UK? Weird since they're banned.

Here's something on the Home Office website:

The current situation
In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.

Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/

Whatever the actual statistics, they are an awful lot lower than they are in America.

[Xiahou]

Whatever the actual statistics, they are an awful lot lower than they are in America.

And they always have been, havent they? Before guns were generally banned, they were lower and now still are. Can you really attribute that to gun control?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, I believe the 8 biggest US cities account for half of the crime. And guess what? Most have banned guns. Huh.

EDIT: Once again, can any of you anti-gunner's explain Switzerland, then?

Crazed Rabbit

[drone]

The main reason people in the US are allowed to have firearms is not to protect themselves from crooks, but to protect themselves from the government. The 2nd Amendment is supposed to keep the federal government from becoming a tyranny. As anti-gun laws remove firearms from the law-abiding citizens incrementally, it makes it easier for the government to assert itself over the rest of our freedoms.

The reason the NRA opposes all gun legislation (even the ones that make sense) is because the NRA knows how much of a slippery slope the issue is. Give the gov an inch, and they WILL eventually take the mile.

The problem in the US is not the guns, but the culture. Hollywood actors/idols making violent films, then pushing for gun control. What are we supposed to do? The talking box in fun mode tells us to kill, and then in boring mode it tells us not too. We are a simple people , we get confused easily, and this angers us.

One, two, three, flaaaaame.......ON!

If the firearms are being confiscated from legal owners, without compensation or intent to return, somebody is going to get into a lot of trouble here.

[English assassin]

Haven't gun crimes been on the rise in the UK? Weird since they're banned.

I fell into this mistake myself. Not weird at all

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.

I think we can all see the logical flaw in that argument. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for having propagated it myself

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?

As any reputable martial arts instructor will tell you, if you can, leg it. If you can't run, give them what they want. If you can't do that, then use what you know and fight.

I still wouldn't want a gun. But that is in the UK context where I am 99% confident they would not have one either. Things are so messed up in the states, I guess I would want one.

[Aenlic]

The problem isn't guns. It never has been guns. It is the underlying society which promotes the use of the guns in an irrational manner. A rational society should have no problem with the ownership of guns. Blaming guns for the problems of a society which then uses the guns is like blaming gravity when you drop something heavy on your toe. The mechanism by which something happens is not the reason why something happens.

[Paul Peru]

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.

I think gun crimes are probably on the rise in Norway as well.
It is now a punishable offense for hunters to carry lead shot.

[bmolsson]

Just for the record: I am for gun control.....

[Proletariat]

No means other than the machete, ice axe, and Prussian infantry officer sword I have in the house. And the few years karate, Ju jitsu, and fencing training I have under my belt. backed with a reasonable weights regime.

That's great for you.

What about the rest of us non-Ninjas out here? Should a women just get raped if a sexual predator breaks into her house because they couldn't karate chop him?

I guess in England the muscle bound ogres are free to self-defense while the meek get targeted.

Welcome to the Cambrian Period!

[English assassin]

That's great for you.

What about the rest of us non-Ninjas out here? Should a women just get raped if a sexual predator breaks into her house because they couldn't karate chop him?

I guess in England the muscle bound ogres are free to self-defense while the meek get targeted

On the other hand her attacker won't be carrying a gun. And I've been in (martial arts) clubs with women who could kick my arse, no hesitation admitting it. And they were no muscle bound ogres I can promise you.

The criminals can and always will have access to any gun out there.

Simply untrue as a matter of fact in the UK. In the US, maybe so. In which case I guess you are stuffed.

[Proletariat]

I really can't believe that fisticuffs are being offered as a serious alternative to bearing arms for self-defense.

Of all the anti-gun arguments... Sheesh.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Did you watch the video? The NG came in like a raid on Baghdad. They handcuffed the citizens for daring to live and seek protection.

http://media.putfile.com/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall

I would, for what its worth, die free.

As any reputable martial arts instructor will tell you, if you can, leg it. If you can't run, give them what they want. If you can't do that, then use what you know and fight.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US you're least likely to get injured in a mugging if you resist with a gun (17%). Doing anything else (giving money, running) results in a higher percentage of injury (25%+).

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

There is no good logical reason for banning guns nearly all the people i know have muiltiple firearms and guees what none have been convicterd of murder Guns are useful in nearly everykind of situiation and EA no offense but what if multiple guys break in or you cant beat up the first guy. Im sorry but if men in black siuts come and try to take our guns they be hardpressed to get anyone here to hand them over peacefully

[Xiahou]

On the other hand her attacker won't be carrying a gun.

Right, it couldn't happen.

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.

Sure it's that simple?

Violent crime in the U.K. rose 6 percent in the three months through September, led by an increase in alcohol-fueled offenses and gun crime, police figures show.

link

The murder rate in London has doubled in 12 months to reach one of its highest levels ever, according to the most recent Home Office statistics, which have been leaked to the Telegraph.
....
Senior officers fear that a dramatic increase in the use of guns, particularly in battles between gangs competing over the trade in drugs, is the prime cause of the sharp rise in the number of deaths.

link

[Claudius the God]

i'm so relieved to be living in a country where no one carries firearms except police. it's so much safer here in Australia, i would never want to travel to the USA.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wow! How did you guys convince the criminals to not carry firearms?

[Samurai Waki]

Why don't the civilians resieze their guns?... I sure as hell would.... or bludgeon an NG guy and take his

[GodsPetMonkey]

That's great for you.

What about the rest of us non-Ninjas out here? Should a women just get raped if a sexual predator breaks into her house because they couldn't karate chop him?

I guess in England the muscle bound ogres are free to self-defense while the meek get targeted.

Welcome to the Cambrian Period!

I think you will find full quadriplegics would have difficulty using a gun anyway...

Or, if you can use a gun, you can cause harm to someone even without one, it doesn't take to much effort to knee someone in the groin (and that does hurt, a lot), or poke them in the eyes, or bite them (if they are really close, don't charge in to do this), or the best one yet, just run away if you can... fists and knives are not ranged weapons, and as they are incredibly unlikely to have a firearm, they are pretty much thwarted. Of course, this won't work in the US, where they ARE likely to have a gun, so don't try this at home.

Nor would I. But the balance of advantage is not in your favor in the UK or in the US. All the karate and pointy Prussian sticks wont help you against an attacker armed with gun. Since prohibiting responsible citizens from owning guns does little to nothing to prevent a criminal from obtaining one, you are at risk.

You are right, against someone with a gun, that shiny knife is pretty much useless... of course, the number of times I have had a crime committed against me with the bad guy being aimed with a gun is zero. The number of people I know who have been the victim of a gun crime is zero. I know quite a few people who own firearms (having grown up in the country), but they are all rifles, typically bolt-action, none of them assault weapons. That's right, no pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, machine pistols, flame throwers, rocket launchers, AA batteries, coastal defence guns... you get the idea. They just aren’t needed... an M16 isn't THAT good if you need to kill a sheep dying of starvation.
In fact, the only time I have seen a pistol is when it's safely holstered on a policeman.

Then again, I do live in a country where when an armed robbery is committed on the other side of the continent, it's major national news. I guess guns, and gun crime, is something that happens elsewhere.
Is it cultural? Or will removing all those pretty pea-shooters really make a difference? Probably both, most illegal guns started out as legal weapons, those legal weapons had to come from somewhere, and not even the biggest organised crime groups would raid the Springfield armoury, so I guess they were stolen from civilians. In theory, take away the guns from the civilians and you take away the source for the guns for the criminals, but this will only really work if there were not that many illegal guns to begin with, they will slowly be picked up over time and become prized, horded possessions (as they have here, the majority of pistols are in the control of the proper crime syndicates... you will find they like to shoot each other much more then rape little old ladies and do house breaks).

I guess ultimately the US patrons don't know what it is like to live in a gunless society, and I don't know what it's like to live in a gunfull society.

What makes you better than me?

I have a law degree.
Sorry, couldn't resist, you are a good person Don, I'd give you a honouree law degree to make you better then everyone else too.

*Please note: The above statement includes trace amounts of sarcasm, if congested in a serious manner, induce vomiting and consult a head doctor*

[Samurai Waki]

I don't think taking away guns is the answer... taking away a persons firearm... pistol, rifle, etc. that wants to use it for personal protection and then it gets stolen from them, all they have to do is cross the border into mexico (or have someone cross the border for them) and bring back a load of AKs fresh from Russia, I would bet any one of you 500$ USD that such a transaction is happening as we speak. Whats the use of taking away someone's registed .38 Special, so that they can illegally obtain an unregistered illegal AK-74? I think this is the dumbest thing a politician has done since going into Iraq blind. Personally I would be the first person to get an AK.

[Duke of Gloucester]

What saddens me about this debate is the number of US citizens who seem to think they need a gun to protect themselves. Here in the UK far fewer people live in fear, it seems.

Having said that I understand the historical significance of the 2nd ammendment in protecting citizens from the state. If I was american, I would want to see it maintained. I do think the ISRA are overstating the case. The 2nd ammendment is not the freedom that protects all others. If that were true, then I am not free. Confiscating firearms in a state of emergency is a violation of the 2nd ammendment, but not the beginning of its end. If that were true, anyone could end a freedom by violating it once.