Gun control

[pritch]

Blah blah blah... sounds like it's time to call the homies at C.A.N.G. for an internet driveby

oh, I'm shitting myself. no, really I'm just shitting myself.
You big scary bastard, how am I ever going to survive? Perhaps in what little time I have left I'll just speak what's on my mind.
fuck off, newbie, and die
oh, and great user name btw. Do you like bending over, is that it? A bit of a wannabe gay pornstar, are we? Anal gratification your second favoutite thing to being a pain in the ass in this forum?
/grrrr.

[Lüt]

If you're serious about this stuff, go to a proper place to air you're opinions

This IS the proper place, Einstein.

[pritch]

If you're serious about this stuff, go to a proper place to air you're opinions

This IS the proper place, Einstein.

I just don't like people who only post in this forum, I mean, how do they end up here? This is DW, for chrissake.

[Lüt]

I mean, how do they end up here?

Like this.

[pritch]

I just clicked on that link, it really depressed me.

If any of you from AR15 are reading this, I'd like you to listen to what I think of you;

Never in my life have I seen more perfect examples of fucking retarded deep-south Americans and their fucking inbred attitudes to the world.
England sucks, does it? Fuck You. Who was it who went to war with the fascists twice, and both times had to wait years for you Americans and your isolationist shit to catch up with us?
Oh yeah, you're such a great nation, such a friggin' great superpower, no really, everyone loves you, they really do. It's not like anyone's flying planes in to your buildings cos they're pissed off with you or something?
You know, the thing is, I actually like America, and I'm a conservative, and I have no thing against guns in responsible hands.
ITS FAGGOTS LIKE YOU WHO GLORIFY WEAPONS BECAUSE THEY REPLACE THE ONE-INCH PENISES YOU HAVE that give your country a bad name. You must have a real bad self-image problem if you feel the need to slap down the other countries such as Sweden in your forums. And btw, that makes you fucking ignorant racsists as well, Sweden is a more civilised and cultured country than America will ever be. Oh, but it's oh so big of you to have a go at those who just don't happen to have as much land, as much fat in their diet, cause as much of the world's pollution as you do. No, really, you're a bunch of real big time hardasses, that's why YOU JOIN A FORUM THAT TALKS ABOUT A GUN!! Ha, ha ha!!
Well, I don't need to say anymore, it's enough for me to know that you dickheads will always be a laugh to the rest of us. So long, I hope you lose your motherfuckin' guns up your fat arseholes next time you're frigging yourselves with them.

Now fuck off back to your retarded forums, and stay the fuck away from ours

[danarchist]

I just clicked on that link, it really depressed me.

If any of you from AR15 are reading this, I'd like you to listen to what I think of you; <snip>

w3rd...why the hell are they dissing on non-Americans. I hate America, all the people here are a bunch of self-centered arrogant assholes. Someone in that forum said something about how 'if it wasn't for guns, we'd all be speaking Canadian'. WTF kind of moronic talk is this. I would rather live in Canada. I know you're going to say 'Why don't you move there you treasonous bastard.' I would but all my friends and family are here. If they ever started the draft back up, though...I'd be there in a flash.

ITS <elplative deleted> LIKE YOU WHO GLORIFY WEAPONS BECAUSE THEY REPLACE THE ONE-INCH PENISES YOU HAVE

Big gun = compensation for something.

Now fuck off back to your retarded forums, and stay the fuck away from ours[/b]

Who in the Nine Acrid-smelling Hells gave them this link. If you don't play Doom, STAY THE FUCK AWAY.

[BenDover]

What if I do happen to play Doom? Maybe not as much as I play Unreal these days but I am indeed a Doomer.

You guys have got to understand some things:

1. Gun owners come from ALL walks of life and live all over the USA. They are not just white, redneck, hillbilly truck driver southerners who hate everybody different than themselves. Most hi-powered rifle shooter/owners are middle-upper incomes (because it is a very expensive hobby).

2. History shows that the disarming of a populace is the first step towards a totalitarian regieme.

3. Statistically, gun control does nothing to prevent crime. In fact, the reverse is true since criminals know that an unarmed area is easy pickings.

4. Gun owners are passionate about their pastime and will actively argue/fight/lobby/petition to preserve their interests. There are several multi-million member political organizations dedicated to the cause (NRA, RKBA, etc...) This is necessary to provide balance and preserve the rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution.

I bought a rifle for my 6 year-old nephew for Christmas with full endorsement from his daddy. We are actively raising a new generation of youth who understand what freedom means, what it cost to achieve, what it costs to keep, and what it means to their generation. The liberal media and the baby boomer generation has done more to destroy culture, destroy individual rights, and destroy the freedom of thought and expression than any other generation in history. All you international members who don't like the USA, its politics, or its position, well... you have the baby boomers to thank for that. THey are the ones who have been whining and crying since Vietnam. They are now the ones in power and running things. GenerationX is biding their time and will be making changes in short order as soon as we ship some of these old farts off to the retirement homes... It's kind of hard though when you have people like Strom Thurmond in office at 97 years old.

Time will tell.

[William_Gunn]

Laugh, I love you European idiots. Let's laugh at the Brits for a while, shall we?

Their government doesn't trust their citizens to do squat. 90% of the Brits believe the government exists to give them the necessities of life. They have no self reliance and the citizens are still referred to as "subjects".

When the Nazi's decided they wanted to knock off their idiotic island nation the Brits scurried to defend themselves. But alas, their government had disarmed the people and made firearm ownership socially unacceptable. Sure, there were a few shotgun owners and a few handguns but nothing on the magnitude necessary to defend their socialist-monarchy from the fascists. I personally find the notion that two governments that oppress their citizens (subjects) should go to war with each other comical. But that's not the point. The point is that the monarchy begged the uncouth, uncultured, dirty, ass-backwards American's to DONATE their personally owned firearms to their citizens for the homeguard... which we did. As soon as the war was over though, ROUND'EM UP! Subjects aren't to be trusted with guns... and if they are trusted it's only to defend the monarchy when all else has failed.

Fastforward to today: The Brits are experiencing an ever increasing crime rate while America has been in crime recession for years. There are more guns on the streets now than there ever has been. I suggest that you read the book by Dr. Lott titled "More Guns Less Crime" if you would like an unbiased insight into the American "gun culture".

Oh, and check this out! I bet this makes your socialist/monarchist/fascist skin crawl! GOOD! This means "NOT WELCOME" to anyone who opposes our government or way of life:

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1207778&a=8911889&p=53423334

*Note: These are legally owned machineguns in my collection.

[pritch]

William Gunn, I don't oppose your way of life. I am not anti-gun, I do however believe that peole should not keep weapons which are all too easy to kill someone with at home. I myself own a number of high powered air pistols and rifle which fire in the region of 650-950 fps.
What I object to is bigotted, self-aggrandised pompousity and the false nationalism propounded by some of the members at AR15. Maybe my last post was written whilst I was in a bit of a temper, but I still hold out for much of what I what I wrote, and I won't edit it.
You can dis England, fine. No one in England is gonna give a fuck what you think. We are standing by you when some of the real enemies we have in this world are trying to destroy you in particular, so i'd think you'd be a little less rude. Most of what you said about us being repressed subjects is total bullshit, no one in Britain has the need to own a gun except on the farms, and they are allowed one with license anyway. You see, we just don't care about guns, ok? There is just no call for them over here. If we wanted them bad enough, we'd have them, because we have a damn good parliamentary system where a private members bill can be put forward, and laws created in a matter of days.
What you siad about crime is twisted. That has nothing to do with guns, the rise in crime rates here is mostly car theft related, something that guns could never solve. It's also due to less spending my our shitty socialist government, and I can asure you once the conservatives, to which I belong, get back in, that figure will drop again.
Look, both Britain and the US have faults. On the whole, I hold both, esp. the land of my birth close to my heart. I would fight to defend either country's freedom, as we are allies, not foes. But there are elements in each society that I find unacceptable, and some of the mindlessly derogatory posts over at AR15 really pissed me off.
I hope you'll reconsider your position.

[William_Gunn]

William Gunn, I don't oppose your way of life. I am not anti-gun, I do however believe that peole should not keep weapons which are all too easy to kill someone with at home.

Like knives, ball bats (Cricket), cars, poison, etc.? I'm sorry, but some of the most gruesome murder scenes I've witnessed were caused by knife attacks. Check out the OJ Simpson pictures on www.rotten.com.

Ease of use isn't an issue and is a total cop out. I carry a handgun with me everywhere I go. Today when I attend church I will be carrying my .45 under my jacket, as will others. We have no crime to speak of in my town because I live in one of the 33 states that allows us to carry concealed weapons. I go to bars on Friday nights, drink and carry a handgun. Guess what, no drunken gun battles ensue as you seem to think would be the case. There's a saying we have here in America and it goes like this, "an armed society is a polite society".

I strongly recommend you read Dr. Lott's book. You can find it on Amazon.com.

I myself own a number of high powered air pistols and rifle which fire in the region of 650-950 fps.
What I object to is bigotted, self-aggrandised pompousity and the false nationalism propounded by some of the members at AR15.

And would you own an AR-15 if you could legally? Why do you own an airgun? Do you enjoy shooting or something? You must... so, what's so bad about owning an AR-15 in your opinion? Just too much power for you? Are you afraid you might loose control one day in traffic and start killing people indiscriminately?

Our firearm ownership is something American's take VERY seriously. It was our adherence to our belief in self reliance and personal liberty that allowed us to win our freedom from your King. Until we took up arms your monarchy treated us like trash and abused our people. We will never allow that to happen again by anyone's king, government or dictator. We don't trust our government or anyone else's. We believe we have a right to choose our own destiny and overthrow an oppressive government should one arise. It's hardly "false nationalism" and we proved that in 1776 and 1812.

No one in England is gonna give a fuck what you think.

That really hurts... :). And conversely no one in America gives a crap about your opinion of our country or our culture. Either accept it or drop it. You passing judgment on our culture isn't necessary, is it? If you don't like the way we live, ignore us.

We are standing by you when some of the real enemies we have in this world are trying to destroy you in particular, so i'd think you'd be a little less rude.

Thanks for "standing by us" but we can stand just fine without you. If you think "standing by us" gives you license to deride our culture, system of government or freedoms, you're mistaken. If you're people can't accept our way of life, then take a hike. If you can be true friends and resist the temptation to pass judgment on our culture, then I welcome you to "stand by us". Sure, it's nice having the Brits as allies but you're inconsequential militarily. We can take care of ourselves regardless of your position.

That has nothing to do with guns, the rise in crime rates here is mostly car theft related, something that guns could never solve.

That's odd, I've read your spike in crime comes from criminals who walk into occupied (unarmed) homes, strong-arm the owners and steal their belongings.

Look, both Britain and the US have faults. On the whole, I hold both, esp. the land of my birth close to my heart. I would fight to defend either country's freedom, as we are allies, not foes.

And on this we can agree. I too take my country very seriously and our freedoms... EVERY ONE OF THEM. I'm a Marine and will be until the day I die. I will stand for freedom as my brothers are right now in God forsaken places all over the globe.

I appreciate this post and your additional comments, but I will not sit by and allow a socialist to talk trash on our culture unchecked. I may have been rude but I certainly didn't start it. To call my comments rude after posting your own is sheer hypocrisy.

Regardless, let's move past this.

[pritch]

Alright, I can see where you're coming from. As I don't have any experience on a community where everone carries guns to church/bars/evryday etc. it would be unfair and presumptious of me to pass comment on that.

Please don't blame me or any other Brit for what happened with America in the fight for independance. No one is responsible for the cations of their ancestors, and King George is now genearlly accepted to have had a personality disorder.

I have no problem with the AR15. I'm sure it's a fine firearm. I probably would have one if it was legal over here. I completely trust myself to handle any kind of weapon I've been trained to, and I get this self-trust because I've been taught how to use firearms responsibly at school where I fired live ammunition on a shooting range. Nothing big, just .22 on a 25 yard range, but I was taught to respect guns, which I value. What worries me is that I couldn't trust evryone in my community to be as respectful. You're community obviously benefits from collective security, something I believe in, and that's great, but I'd prefer not to enforce it with potentially lethal menas. Over here we know no one will get killed (except in extreme circumstances) if people have to pull togther against a criminal influence, something I appreciate.

Please don't call me a socialist! Go back and read my last post again, I belong to the other side of the fence! I am a conservative/traditionalist.

I certainly never intended to make a general accusation against America, just hit back at some of the idiots on the AR15 site who showed a complete lack of respect for other cultures, esp. Canada, which I really can't understand. I appreciate you're not one of those, so please don't take those comments I made personally. I think both Britain and the US can envy certain aspects of each others society, and that's a good thing. We can also appreciate each others faults. By learning from each, we can stay proud.

Well, we are allies, thank God, and I say we do need each other. Britain is a key pro-American player in Europe, which America values in it's dealings with Europe, and Britain benefits from our relationship with you. Besides, in the perversion of islam which is Al Quaeda, Hamas, and all associated terorists we all have a responsibilty to pull together and fight it, it would be madness not to.

I'm glad we could talk properly, too. I don't like losing my temper but those comments just really enraged me. Yes, I do enjoy shooting as a hobby, but safety must always be a priority, and I only ever fire at paper targets, as I strive to improve my grouping like all good marksmen.

I hope you appreciate this. I'll close with a question. Do you agree that something needs to be done to prevent kids from getting hold of guns and taking them into school and causing the kind of massacres that we all-too-frequently hear about, and if yes, what would you advocate? I know that this is a criminal element, and that most legally held firearms will never be used in these instances, but it is still worrying that it can happen, isn't it?

[William_Gunn]

Alright, I can see where you're coming from. As I don't have any experience on a community where everone carries guns to church/bars/evryday etc. it would be unfair and presumptious of me to pass comment on that.

Agreed. Have you ever visited the United States? It's not the wild west as some Europeans imagine it. Chances are you'll pass countless homes and citizens where firearms are being stored or carried. Most of our bigger cities are extremely liberal and firearms aren't nearly as prevalent... and their extremely high crime rates are usually testament to this fact.

If you wander into rural America you'll find pick-up trucks with rifles or shotguns in the windows and if you're in Nevada or Arizona you'll likely see someone walking around with a pistol on their hip. In my area we keep them concealed and out of sight.

The media seems to sensationalize violence thereby giving the false impression that blood runs in all of our streets. America is a very quiet and peaceful country in reality... just avoid the liberal cesspools of Chicago, New York, Detroit, Washington D.C., etc. These cities represent a liberal social experiment gone horribly wrong which no one seems willing to fix. Guns aren't the problem, liberal social programs and their desire to use minorities for votes coupled with race baiters like Jessie Jackson, Farrakhan and Al Sharpton keep tensions high along with crime and the violence that accompanies it.

Please don't blame me or any other Brit for what happened with America in the fight for independance. No one is responsible for the cations of their ancestors, and King George is now genearlly accepted to have had a personality disorder.

I don't hold you or any of your current countrymen responsible for the actions of your ancestors, but don't ask me to turn a blind eye to history. It was your King(s) whom oppressed their subjects and which prompted people like our founding fathers to revolt. You may now look back at King George and frown upon his actions but I frown upon the whole notion of a monarchy in general. King George was but one small cog in the machine in my opinion. The whole system was flawed and oppressive, and I think your countrymen would agree given your political evolution towards a more republican society.

You're community obviously benefits from collective security, something I believe in, and that's great, but I'd prefer not to enforce it with potentially lethal menas.

If I'm not mistaken there's been something of a ruckus in your country regarding the current trend of your Bobbies arming themselves with military type weapons. Historically your police have not carried firearms in the execution of their duties and you had special units (firearms units) that would respond to calls where firearms were required. Now it appears your police are issuing more and more military weapons to the general police population. Why is that? Usually such actions are taken to repell a perceived threat or to counter an increase in crime or a notable gain in the possibility of violent crime. I don't believe your police would take such action in response to an increase in car theft. :)

In America we don't believe in special classes of people. We believe everyone is created equal and that no one man or group of men stands above another -- with regards to their liberties or personal freedoms. This includes firearms ownership. Statistically speaking police are JUST as likely to become involved in illegal activities as the average citizen. To arm only your police and military is to create and accept a special class of citizens. They aren't any less likely to do something illegal or immoral with their firearms privileges, but for some reason you feel safer thinking they are somehow (perhaps divinely) compelled to only do good with their special powers.

I shoot with local police quite often and 90% of the time I'm FAR more proficient with my weapon(s) than they are. Sometimes I think to myself "this guy is paid to protect ME?".

I think here we must agree to disagree...

Please don't call me a socialist! Go back and read my last post again, I belong to the other side of the fence! I am a conservative/traditionalist.

My bad and please accept my apologies. But in America anyone who believes that only the government should be trusted to bear arms (against its citizens) is considered a liberal, or socialist. I know such generalizations can't be passed from country to country, so I'm sorry.

Well, we are allies, thank God, and I say we do need each other. Britain is a key pro-American player in Europe, which America values in it's dealings with Europe, and Britain benefits from our relationship with you. Besides, in the perversion of islam which is Al Quaeda, Hamas, and all associated terorists we all have a responsibilty to pull together and fight it, it would be madness not to.

Agreed. I've had my run-ins with your Royal Marines on occasion... but I've long since forgiven your country for that. :) It seems the USMC and Royal Marines will never get along... perhaps only in combat do they finally come together. :)

I'm glad we could talk properly, too.

Same here. :)

I'll close with a question. Do you agree that something needs to be done to prevent kids from getting hold of guns and taking them into school and causing the kind of massacres that we all-too-frequently hear about, and if yes, what would you advocate?

My father carried his shotgun to school each day so that he could hunt during his walks to and from school. He was allowed to keep it in his wall locker during class. Until recently many schools taught students basic marksmanship and had weapons in schools. There was a time in the U.S. where there was no age limit to owning a firearm and guns, even machineguns, could be purchased through mail order catalogs. It's not the presence of guns that causes people to kill, it's something deeper. It's too easy to ban an inanimate object in an effort to dodge the actual problem... but after all of our freedoms are gone, the heart of a killer will still be present. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Canada]

Ok Idiots, time to wake up and learn the truth about firearms.

An independent report, Illegal Firearms in the UK, to be
published by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's
College in London tomorrow, says that handguns were
used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in
1997, an increase of 40 per cent.

Since you brits banned guns your gun related crime has INCREASED. So yes, ban all guns so we can enjoy the peace and love being enjoyed right now in Britain.

Here some more intresting info

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Now Switzerland which FORCES every male to own a ASSAULT RIFLE AT HOME and sells its outdated machine guns TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned!

Dont any of you idiots ask yourselves if someone in one of those mass shootings that happened in the US or in the UK had a gun on themselves for protection what would have happened?

[PRISM]

This is not intended to be a bash or incite any flame. I find it inconsistant that DOOM addicts would be anti-gun advocates. I do not mean to offend but before every post I read that acted as a sort of road block. But to every his own.

One thing that was brought up kids using guns for mass murders at schools. Why has this only been prolific in the last ten years? The availability of guns to kids began a great amount of time before this. And don't anyone worry about it being the violent games as the problem because "cowboys and Indians" was even more realistic and to the point then DOOM ever will be.
Gun control is a very important thing. Otherwise a gun is dangerous. Hold gun firmly by grip. Do not place finger over trigger until target is aquired. DO NOT FIRE AT AN UNKOWN TARGET. Various other procedurs can be followed to further maximize gun control but as always the first step is common sense.
If Dylan Claybold (Columbine) was taught to use a gun the in the same, or better yet, even more respectful and careful manner that he was taught to use a car...
Well that's probably asking too much.
Pritch and William_Gunn thank you for returning this to a conversation as opposed to a string of personal attacks. It allowed me to finish the thread.

[pritch]

The issue of whether or not our cops should be armed or not is one of a number under debate here right now. Unfortunately the current government is so busy making life hell for our police budget-wise that the issue has been rather forgotten.
Certainly any situation where it is possible an armed suspect is involved, our police should carry the the best counter-weaponary available. For regular patrols, I think something like the taser suffices. In problem areas known to be high with illegal arms I would want police to always be allowed to carry guns.
I don't think the trend towards the increased armament is solely to do with guns, it has more been so that police don't have to involved in pysical confrontation and an instead affectively force a suspect to surerrender him/herself. Having said that, sadly there are more illegal guns creeping into Britain, it has very little to do with oridinary people, even regular criminals, but a hard-core criminal culture, normally involved with the distribution of class A elicit substances and linked to extortion, other things. I'd arm everyone with BFG9000s if i thought it could get these bastards busted.:) Unfortunately they are very hard to round up, and even harder to prosecute, but that's another story.
I'm a monarchist but I have no reason to expect any American to be. I'm proud of our Royal family because I believe they've always tried to uphold British interests and our way of life. It may not seem fair to you, but I suggest that you have to live under the Queen first to understand what it means. I would feel priveliged to serve my Queen, she works damned hard for this country. I don't think we've moved closer to being a republic, I think we've become just more of a constitutional monarchy, which is a good thing. At the same time I think it's good we have the Queen and the Lords to check our politicians, after all the people who whine about the monarchy don't seem to realise that policticians are usually about 10 times less virtuous! :)
As far as your dad carrying his gun into school, well, I don't know. I went to the same school as my dad, and when he was there a friend of his was killed when he was shot in the head by another friend who was trying to clean a school cadet force issue .76. It was a tragic accident and terrible luck but the lesson was learned.
To kill someone with a knife etc. by accident is hard, to do it with a firearm can be all too easy. That is why when I was at school we had very strict operational guidelines and supervision for handling the guns. When I think of some of the people I knew at school, if they had been allowed to walk around with a shotgun, well, jeez, it doesn't bare thinking about. They just wouldn't have the diligence to ensure a safe environment for everyone. Firearms must always be safely secured.
Oh, yes I've been to America! I've been to Florida twice, and Washington state down through the Indian reservations to Seattle. I saw a lot of both states as we explored thoroughly. Fantastic contrasts. I appreciate that, certainly in Washington, a firearm to deal with vermin and other animals could be necessary.
But not in the cities, no. Cities are different beasts. I know both, I've lived in the open 'side over here (what's left of it :( ) and in the town. I've always thought that both need different rules on a whole host of things, not just guns.
Anyways, I did like America, though I was genuinely concerned at the amount of fat and esp. sugar in the common diet. I put on a half a stone, lol. It's all these damned fast food places. Sadly, it's something we're copying fast. The trouble is your food is so darned tasty and cheap people give up saying no! Over here the restaurants are expensive, the food is poor and the service is bad, so people have less of a chance to get fat!:)

Sorry to hear that the marines don't get on so well. I know that the SAS and the Navy Seals get a lot out of each other, but I don't know too much about the rest. Hey, you could try and break the ice! :>

[pritch]

What if I do happen to play Doom? Maybe not as much as I play Unreal these days but I am indeed a Doomer.

If that is the case, then fine, but I expect to see you more at the general forums...

[BenDover]

For the record, I have not bashed non-Americans either. I have many international friends and business associates. However, I do have a hard time with foreigners who bash America for trying to hold to some ideological truths that are rooted in history. Namely, the right to keep and bear arms. How tough would it have been for Hitler to sweep across the European mainland if there were more armed citizens. How tough would it have been for Russia to sweep across Eastern Europe and the Ukraine if the people would have been better armed?

Extremism in any form is wrong. Anti or pro. However, it is the fear of mutually assured destruction that keeps the balance.

[William_Gunn]

Certainly any situation where it is possible an armed suspect is involved, our police should carry the the best counter-weaponary available. For regular patrols, I think something like the taser suffices. In problem areas known to be high with illegal arms I would want police to always be allowed to carry guns.

Historically American's have prided themselves on the fact they are self-reliant. Old school Americans and the current crop of Conservatives (Republicans) still hold these values close to their hearts. We don't want to rely on a government agency to protect us. We don't want accountability for our own safety passed on to a government body which has no vested interest in our safety or well being. No, we would rather take our own security upon ourselves for our own families and friends.

I say arm the population and let them police their own. This has worked and still works in many areas of our great country. Criminals by their nature are cowards and almost always take the path of least resistance. When they encounter armed citizens, they run the other way. They look for the unarmed and defenseless victim to make their scores. Police are rarely present to prevent crimes, all they can do is take a report and look for the perpetrators to bring them to justice. Screw that, I'll take care of my self, thank you. :)

I'm a monarchist but I have no reason to expect any American to be. I'm proud of our Royal family because I believe they've always tried to uphold British interests and our way of life.

Really? Most of your past monarchs were born in foreign countries such as France. How do you believe a foreign national has the best interests of your people in their hearts? I've never understood that...

It may not seem fair to you, but I suggest that you have to live under the Queen first to understand what it means. I would feel priveliged to serve my Queen, she works damned hard for this country. I don't think we've moved closer to being a republic, I think we've become just more of a constitutional monarchy, which is a good thing. At the same time I think it's good we have the Queen and the Lords to check our politicians, after all the people who whine about the monarchy don't seem to realise that policticians are usually about 10 times less virtuous! :)

That's odd, it's my understanding that your royal family has no power any longer and this was the basic argument against further supporting a VERY expensive figurehead by many of your countrymen. By law your monarchs are prohibited from being involved in official political functions and your Parliament was the all powerful body.

I'm no expert on your political structure though...

As for your country not being a republic, well... perhaps you should look up the definition of the word. :) Do you not elect members to your Parliament? An elected governing body is in fact a republic, as America is. "Republic" simply means you are represented by elected officials, which to my knowledge you are.

To kill someone with a knife etc. by accident is hard, to do it with a firearm can be all too easy. That is why when I was at school we had very strict operational guidelines and supervision for handling the guns. When I think of some of the people I knew at school, if they had been allowed to walk around with a shotgun, well, jeez, it doesn't bare thinking about. They just wouldn't have the diligence to ensure a safe environment for everyone.

I'm sorry, but this is true of MANY-MANY things not just firearms. True, to accidentally kill yourself or someone else with a knife is almost impossible. How about a car? I grew up with guns, having access to rifles and handguns as early as 16 years of age. I had my first AR-15 at the ripe old age of 17. It was given to my as a birthday present. All of my buddies had firearms as well, ranging from HK91's (G3's) to Ruger Mini-14's. I didn't lose a single friend to gun fire but I did lose three (3) friends to car accidents and two (2) to motorcycle accidents. One friend was paralyzed in a horse riding accident and I even lost a friend in a plane crash. Not one gun accident or murder though.

Firearms are unfairly singled out because the perception is that they are deadly... more so than other items commonly available. This simply isn't true. Most people have a natural fear of the unknown, and guns represent a HUGE unknown for many people. I've met people so stricken with fear upon seeing a firearm that they literally froze. They begged me to put it away. Absolute idiocy, but a very real fear. There was a time in your country where firearms weren't so feared. The media and the government work night and day to program the masses to believe guns are evil and inspire evil acts. Sorry, but that's simply not true. We would save FAR more lives if we banned cars, motorcycles and even alcohol (we tried that once with devastating results).

[pritch]

The monarchy don't have that much real power any more, true, but the Queen must still give her consent to every act of parliament that is passed.
I know that a lot of the Royal Family are considered foreigners by outsiders but that is misinterpretive of what that term actually meant in the past. Royalty was considered above nationality and the European dynasties were intrinsically interlinked. It is too simplistic to make those boundaries, and I say that as someone who is qualified in History.
I agree, cars, alcohol etc. are much more likely to cause an accident. But two wrongs don't make a right. I doubt my dad's friend's family would have been much-comforted if someone had said, well never mind, many more people are killed in car accidents... we'll have to agree to disagree there :)
hehehe, no we don't live in a republic! Parliament doesn't have supreme power thank God! The Law Lords can overturn any decisions, and so can the queen, although granted it would be extraordinary if she did nowadays.
Well, yes, I do of course believe that people have a right to defend themselves. You may well be aware of the case of Tony Martin who went to prison for manslaughter over here for shooting dead a 16 year old who was in the process of burgling him. I had mixed emotions here. If he was being attacked, fine, I could have authorised his use of the shotgun, but there was compelling evidence Barras was running away when Martin shot him. You see how ambiguous the situation looks all of a sudden?
There's a fine line to be drawn between defending yourself and taking the law into your own hands. Unfortunately, people as a whole are rarely capable of making such distinctions. There was recently a leak of information in a certain disgraced newspaper over here which made paedophiles names and addresses clear to the public. A lot of innocent people were mistakenly beaten up because of the hysteria that ensued. Some people were so violent that I genuinely believe that if those members of the public had owned firarms, people would have been killed.
The law isn't perfect, but it's there for all of us. It's there because it's fairer than we'd ever be if we took it into our own hands. And while it may disgruntle me at times, I'll defend it with my life, because I believe it is what truly makes us free. You may disagree, but again we'll just have to respect each other's opinion, I doubt very much either of us stubborn conservatives will change!:)

[William_Gunn]

I agree, cars, alcohol etc. are much more likely to cause an accident. But two wrongs don't make a right. I doubt my dad's friend's family would have been much-comforted if someone had said, well never mind, many more people are killed in car accidents... we'll have to agree to disagree there :)

So would your dad call for the banishment of cars if his friend had died in a car accident? If not, why the double standard?

Do you want to ban all potentially dangerous objects in the name of security? Wow... what a bland world you envision. :)

Let's face it, people die and accidents happen. We can run and ban everything which has the potential for being dangerous.

hehehe, no we don't live in a republic! Parliament doesn't have supreme power thank God! The Law Lords can overturn any decisions, and so can the queen, although granted it would be extraordinary if she did nowadays.

As can our President. We call it "veto". This doesn't negate the fact you're ruled by a representative republic. You don't elect your monarch, but you do elect your representatives.

If he was being attacked, fine, I could have authorised his use of the shotgun, but there was compelling evidence Barras was running away when Martin shot him. You see how ambiguous the situation looks all of a sudden?

Nope, in our state of Texas you can in fact shoot someone for being on your property if you believe they are there to do something illegal. It doesn't matter where you shoot them, front or back. The same holds true in other states once the criminal breaks into your house. Once inside all bets are off, as they should be. If you enter someone's home with the intent of doing something against them, you should also accept the fact you might die in the process. I see nothing wrong with this.

There's a fine line to be drawn between defending yourself and taking the law into your own hands. Unfortunately, people as a whole are rarely capable of making such distinctions.

Neither are many law enforcement officers. The police have the privledge of being able to cover their actions and in America it's common for police to lie for each other in such cases.

:)

[Red_Warrior]

Speaking of nukes, I'd like to build a time machine and take it back to five minutes before the inventor of those damned things got his 'brilliant idea' and kick him in the nuts. TAKE THAT MR. DEATH-DESTROYER-OF-WORLDS!

Yeah, I agree! Only I'd kill him and destroy all relevant data. What's really bastardly about the entire thing was that they killed so many innocent people... and terribly injured many more. Anyone who doesn't agree should read the book "Hiroshima" to hear of the miseries of those left alive in the war.

Weapons are -not- often used for protection, but for wanton destruction. They harm more than they help, most of the time. This is not to say they should be illegal, but have people learn to use them. And don't issue them to the 'mentally unstable'.

[Red_Warrior]

I mean, how do they end up here?

Like this.

Nasty critters they is, it seems. It seems they (in general) try to hide their ignorance under hatred and insults... reminds me of the majority of male asses at my school. And if they red, I'm not a kid: I'm 17, had a tragic life and and interested in a variety of pursuits other than games. I actually -do- intend to learn how to shoot for the purpose of information. However, guns have the least amount of valor and dignity of any weapon: they can kill from a distance so you never know your enemy. In war this is a major problem. Many soldiers in ye olden days before mass-produced firearms actually respected their opponents. Victory depended on decisive strategy and who could better weild their weapon, such as a sword. I personally would -really- like to learn fencing ^_^ no practical purpose, but same thing applies to higher algebra to most; only fencing's more fun and fufilling.

Just my seemingly $0.20. Why 20 cents? It's not as cheap as 2.

[William_Gunn]

Yeah, I agree! Only I'd kill him and destroy all relevant data.

Yup, we're lucky the Germans weren't working to invent them too! The dirty Americans were the only ones racing to develop these sinister weapons of mass destruction... those bastards! :)

Did you know it took an entire team to develop these weapons? You would be killing the entire team and you would also have to travel to Nazi Germany and kill their scientists too. You would be a busy little (killing) bee.

What's really bastardly about the entire thing was that they killed so many innocent people... and terribly injured many more. Anyone who doesn't agree should read the book "Hiroshima" to hear of the miseries of those left alive in the war.

I guess you missed the part of WWII history about the V1 rockets (buzz bombs) and the endless medium and heavy bomber campaigns. Those were pretty devastating on the civilian populations of all nations involved.

I also recall reading something about the thousands of American lives lost fighting the Japanese and the estimations of how many "innocent" American boys would have needed to die in the Japanese homeland invasion... which was going to be required to end the war. God knows soldiers on the ground wouldn't have devastated the Japanese civilians...

In reality I thank God America developed the bomb first. Even if you killed the original scientists, certainly you're not so naive as to believe others wouldn't have followed.

Weapons are -not- often used for protection, but for wanton destruction. They harm more than they help, most of the time.

Yup, those pesky weapons. Just yesterday I watched a rifle jump up and try to take over a small town. I also witnessed a handgun, all on its lonesome, shoot and kill 20 or so innocent people... totally unprovoked! Those weapons really have a mind of their own.

News flash, it's not the weapons causing all the pain and suffering. It's the people who desire to harm others who do all the dirty work. As long as the desire to hurt or kill others exists, the weapons will easily be found or made. I think you need to look past your nose to see the source of problem. But alas, the problem is extremely complex and hard to pin-point... so in the interim we'll just blame inanimate objects and hope no one notices our lack of insight. :)

This is not to say they should be illegal, but have people learn to use them. And don't issue them to the 'mentally unstable'.

That's pretty much how it works, if you're talking about small arms. Last time I checked it was illegal to own a firearm if you were mentally ill, or known to be an illegal drug user, convicted of domestic violence or if you were a prior felon.

[William_Gunn]

I actually -do- intend to learn how to shoot for the purpose of information.

Perhaps then you will realize that firearms aren't the death ray you appear to believe them to be. Just because you have a firearm doesn't mean you can use it effectively.

However, guns have the least amount of valor and dignity of any weapon: they can kill from a distance so you never know your enemy.

Perhaps with age you'll come realize the insane folly of this comment. Son, war isn't about "getting to know your enemy" and the choice of weapons has nothing to do with valor; valor comes from the hearts of men. I hope you never have to take part in a firefight but trust me when I say you don't want to be any closer to your enemy than you have to be. Sure, it sounds all romantic and I sense that you view combat as something to be relished or savored like a good steak. I'm sorry, but when faced with death you'll take the best damn weapon you can get and you'll fight any way you know how to win. Even the soldiers of the past, given the opportunity, would opt for modern weapons over their swords.

Your comments only go to show your lack of maturity and understanding of what it means to be a combat soldier.

Wars are fought to win, period. They aren't social experiments or opportunities to show ones "valor" for all to see and admire.

In war this is a major problem. Many soldiers in ye olden days before mass-produced firearms actually respected their opponents.

Again, you've obviously never served in the military or during time of war. Even our Marines and soldiers in Afghanistan right now are showing "respect" to captured soldiers. There always has been, and always will be a certain respect between fighting men.

Victory depended on decisive strategy and who could better weild their weapon, such as a sword.

And what do you believe wins wars today when armies clash? You're really missing the boat here.

I personally would -really- like to learn fencing ^_^ no practical purpose, but same thing applies to higher algebra to most; only fencing's more fun and fufilling.

You should learn fencing. It's a great sport and a fun way to spend an afternoon. But you're playing games in doing so. You must learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

[EllipsusD]

Weapons are -not- often used for protection, but for wanton destruction. They harm more than they help, most of the time.

Yup, those pesky weapons. Just yesterday I watched a rifle jump up and try to take over a small town. I also witnessed a handgun, all on its lonesome, shoot and kill 20 or so innocent people... totally unprovoked! Those weapons really have a mind of their own.

Really, come on now. If you are going to treat someone like they are stupid, at least read the wording more carefully next time. She said that weapons (note: all weapons, not just guns) are used less for protection than for destruction (a point which I won't get into at the moment) Keep this in mind when you respond to people.

Perhaps then you will realize that firearms aren't the death ray you appear to believe them to be. Just because you have a firearm doesn't mean you can use it effectively.

I didn't really pick up that Red_Warrior felt that firearms were comparable to death rays... I must have missed something. I seem to be missing the connection in your responce as well. Guns aren't death rays, having a gun doesn't let you know how to use it? I would say that's logical enough- but wouldn't having a gun and not knowing how to use it effectively cause a dangerous situation. Essentially, the peron using the gun becomes dangerous (not inherently, mind you- just in a situation where a gun would be used) if they are ignorant of using it effectively, and the person who knows how to use the weapon is less dangerous(dangerous in the sense of hurting innocents), am I right? And the way you say things, it's as if there is a gap between having the gun and knowing how to use it effectively, right? Well, in my ignorance I see that and it seems like that could constitute a problem. If guns aren't problematic when the owner knows how to use them effectively, then an owner without this knowledge could be problematic. So... why not make sure a gunowner has this knowledge before the gun is bought in order to prevent any trouble caused by this? Or is this already the way of things? But if it was the way of things, why would you have brought it up? Oh well, I suppose you would know more about this than I, you are the expert afterall.

I hope you never have to take part in a firefight but trust me when I say you don't want to be any closer to your enemy than you have to be.

I don't think Red_Warrior meant she wanted to be close in a firefight... she seems to just prefer the closeness of non-projectile combat. She sees the necesity, I think, of not being close so someone with a gun when they are shooting at you... that's why she made the coment in the first place.

I'm sorry, but when faced with death you'll take the best damn weapon you can get and you'll fight any way you know how to win. Even the soldiers of the past, given the opportunity, would opt for modern weapons over their swords.

Well, I would say this is correct about 99% of the time. In war, I would say that you have to do what you need to win. Too many lives are at stake to be "fair". When protecting those you care about you should do everything in your power to protect them.

I personally would -really- like to learn fencing ^_^ no practical purpose, but same thing applies to higher algebra to most; only fencing's more fun and fufilling.

You should learn fencing. It's a great sport and a fun way to spend an afternoon. But you're playing games in doing so. You must learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Fencing seems alright, but I personally prefer kendo. But on to the arguement: "no practical purpose", "differentiate between fantasy and reality." ? I think I'm missing something again, because I could swear that the point of saying that learning how to swordfight wouldn't be practical shows that it wouldn't be used as if it were practical- thus showing the differentiation between fantasy and reality without you needing to say anything.

In closing, I am not against your views, and in fact agree with almost all of them on this subject. I just don't really care for the way you argue your points. You often restate the obvious and argue mute points. It's almost as if you are looking for battles in places they don't appear. I would hope you could be a little more carefull next time you argue like this.

[slo5oh]

Really, come on now. If you are going to treat someone like they are stupid, at least read the wording more carefully next time. She said that weapons (note: all weapons, not just guns) are used less for protection than for destruction (a point which I won't get into at the moment) Keep this in mind when you respond to people.

I don't think william was treating her like she was stupid. I see him as showing her how brainwashed she has been by modern movies and media. Too many movies try to paint the picture of hand to hand combat being romantic, or more honorable then keeping calm, drawing, aiming, and firing on someone that is commiting a crime... thats a load of....

on to weapons (not just guns) being used more for destruction than protection. If you factor out genocide by all country's governments against its own poeple.... then you cut out wars.... you would probably be surprised how high the defensive/offensive ratio would be. Of course it is back page news when someone scares off an intruder with that all to familiar cocking noise of a 12 guage.... if it even makes the news. But we all know the names of certain highschool kids that went on a shooting spree at school.... of course we do. It was plastered to the front page of the news for weeks. If you wanted to know how often a gun is used (without being discharged) to defend someone you would have to guess. There is no way to get an accurate toll of this. I would guess hundreds of times daily across the US.
Of course you have to keep in mind that there are 2 types of criminals. The dedicated and the non-dedicated. The difference is that the dedicated criminal doesn't care that you are armed. He is working off the idea that you are a sheep, and will not stop him. I had a friend of mine confronted by 3 such criminials. Luckily it only took him blasting off one round in the air to let them know he was not afraid of pulling the trigger. These "dedicated" criminals are the ones that create headlines like "shop owner kills 2 would be robbers after being shot in the shoulder".... but then you will only see that headline if it happened in a "nice" neighborhood.

I'm sorry, but when faced with death you'll take the best damn weapon you can get and you'll fight any way you know how to win. Even the soldiers of the past, given the opportunity, would opt for modern weapons over their swords.

Well, I would say this is correct about 99% of the time. In war, I would say that you have to do what you need to win. Too many lives are at stake to be "fair". When protecting those you care about you should do everything in your power to protect them.

If you walked into the local McDondalds and started ordering a big mac when someone crashes through the front doors and starts killing men, women, children, dogs, cats... everyone!!! You jump behind the counter. Keep in mind it's just you, your family went to burger king across the street.
ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY YOU WOULD WISH FOR A SAMURI SWORD???

I would wish for the baddest, fastest, most reliable weapon, with the largest capacity mags, and a butt load of them.

---God created man and woman, Sam Colt made them equal---

[pritch]

If you walked into the local McDondalds and started ordering a big mac when someone crashes through the front doors and starts killing men, women, children, dogs, cats... everyone!!! You jump behind the counter. Keep in mind it's just you, your family went to burger king across the street.

If you went to MacDonalds to eat you deserve to die :)

William, that law scares me, how do you prove if someone was on your land doing something malicious? What happens if they come on to ask for help or something and you shoot them thinking they're a robber? Don't say it's unlikely to happen, bacuse it COULD happen, what do you do then?

I'm sorry I'm not going to address all of your points at this visit, some of us at these forums actually work on a Monday and I'm tired :)

[Red_Warrior]

Perhaps then you will realize that firearms aren't the death ray you appear to believe them to be. Just because you have a firearm doesn't mean you can use it effectively.

Where the hell'd the 'death ray' comment come from? You obviously didn't -read- my post.... I said I wanted to -learn- how to shoot so if I had to use it, I could utilize it more effectively rather than missing by a yard or more. Maybe you should learn how to read entire statements ^_^

I hope you never have to take part in a firefight but trust me when I say you don't want to be any closer to your enemy than you have to be. Sure, it sounds all romantic and I sense that you view combat as something to be relished or savored like a good steak

I believe war is a dishonorable thing to begin with unless reasonable means of negotiation fail. If you have to, you must defend yourself. And I don't mean a close -firefight-, but it's usually more of a test of skill and bravery when it comes to close-range weapons. It doesn't take all that much to fire a gun... even most cowards could.

Your comments only go to show your lack of maturity and understanding of what it means to be a combat soldier.

A -modern- combat soldier. Sure, I don't know everything, and I admit that. I err as any mortal being does. I'm just saying classically battle was still bloody but a much more complex subject. Now they can destroy cities, and likely now even small countries, with a push of a button. It removes the humanity from battle. So how the hell more glorious is that to attack and not see the effects of what you've done?

Again, you've obviously never served in the military or during time of war. Even our Marines and soldiers in Afghanistan right now are showing "respect" to captured soldiers. There always has been, and always will be a certain respect between fighting men.

And where, pray tell, have you been living? In wars these days (and throughout much of known history, take the colonist versus the native americans), the enemy is always 'evil' and to be loathed, for both sides. That job is done by politicians and propaganda. Thank the gods they cut the "communisum is our enemy' crap... there aren't even any commie societies, they're socialists.

And what do you believe wins wars today when armies clash? You're really missing the boat here.

The big guns. Missles. Nukes. Of course everyone's afraid of them now, especially politicians. They're afraid it'll tarnsih their image.

You should learn fencing. It's a great sport and a fun way to spend an afternoon. But you're playing games in doing so. You must learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

I don't see the 'fantasy' in fencing.... it's a sport of skill and prowess in mastering evasion.

And from an earlier posty.....

Yup, those pesky weapons. Just yesterday I watched a rifle jump up and try to take over a small town. I also witnessed a handgun, all on its lonesome, shoot and kill 20 or so innocent people... totally unprovoked! Those weapons really have a mind of their own.

Really? What hallucinigens have you been on? Next you'll see talking toasters running for the Presidency. It's humans that produce weapons and humans that abuse weapons. I'm saying that it's the damned -humans- that keep using weapons to kill each other for no practical gain to humanity.

Yup, we're lucky the Germans weren't working to invent them too! The dirty Americans were the only ones racing to develop these sinister weapons of mass destruction... those bastards! :)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Japan was on the verge of surrender at the point the bomb was dropped. It may have spared many Japanese lives to have postponed the dropping. Of course, that would be seen as 'weakness', and we are talking about the same politican leaders of the US that actually -let the Japanese drop bombs on Pearl harbor as an excuse to enter the war-. No way those many palnes could have moved unnoticed. AND with the fact most of the larger ships were moved to different places shortly before.... what say you? And I'm not being a total "ass about it 'cause the US sucks", but being reasonable. I had a relative who was killed there. If the US politicians weren't such bastards he would still be alive.

In reality I thank God America developed the bomb first. Even if you killed the original scientists, certainly you're not so naive as to believe others wouldn't have followed.

It would have stalled the projects for a few years, at least. It is still totally theoretical, however, if the bomb really would have affected the outcome of the war so drastically. Why the hell did they drop -two-? Wasn't one demolished city and their ruined lives enough? The radiation, too left it's mark... those who didn't die gained great sickness which is even evident to this very day. A bit much, don't you think?

OH! And about the "Son" comment.... I do believe it's fairly obvious that I'm not a male..... ^_^;; I'd make a pretty effeminate guy if I was one though X_p

Ah well, I always like a good debate. Just make it a bit more intelligent next time if it isn't a bother ^_-. If anything, it raises my postcount, which is a nifty bonus, albeit practically useless, but so are all you strange raving weirdos from AR15 flooding this thread.

[Red_Warrior]

what is your nickname???? danarchist? how does someone that can spell the word anarchist be so stupid? This is obviously not what your friends call you. I would suggest you change your name to "pansyassdan" or "itakeitinthedan".

Then what's up with -your- nickname, eh? Besides, at least danarchist is an -original- idea. As for mine, it the alias of a character I have. So don't insult the -names- of others, but you should try to intelligently debate what you feel is 'wrong' with the statements. I personally don't disagree with them much, really. And BBguns aren't toys, they -can- kill if not used properly. Hell, many use them to kill small animals, which is a bastardly thing to do anyhow, as squirrels aren't known for public speaking... *shrugs* now piss off if you won't become reasonable.

[Red_Warrior]

GUARANTEES the RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL to BEAR ARMS!! Not billy clubs arms. Not pepper spray arms. ALL ARMS.

[sarcasm]Okay, then give me my tank. Now. Or a machine gun. Hell, just gimmie the whole armory. Why? 'Cause I can bear any armorments I want![\sarcasm]
Now really, is it practical and good to sell machine guns or auto-rifles to the general public? Do I really need to explain myself here? No, unless you want it written out ^_- but I hope you can find the answer yourself, nee....

You all need a history lesson.... no, you are too busy with your faces buried in a fantasy land video game while the real world is happening outside around you. Steel triggers are much different than plastic joysticks.

Oh really now? All I see is the hypocratic government they -call- a democracy herding many brainwashed (the majority) sheep to use for monetary and political gain. Reality sucks, to be blunt. There is a real world, but as little can be done by me, the lowly individual -and- student, I don't see why I should listen to pro-war jargon put out by imbeciles who know not half of the issues. And yes, game triggers are different than real ones... they kill (the real ones, I mean). Virtual ones do not. Hence, it is better to kill virtual unfeeling pixel/poly people than those of complex mind and flesh and blood. Rebute -that-, Ben.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a virtual Dungeon to manage. And at least I rule better and with a more benign hand than most politicians. America: land of the former president who was caught with his pants down. Yes, I live there, but I disagree with it very much. And it's history sucks too, considering they killed off the -rightful- peoples of the land (the Native Americans)... I'm a proud partial -real- American, not some murdering religious immigrant spawn.