Interesting
-
Unspoken secret - the NRA is working with the government. "Gun control" isn't about guns. It's about control. The gun control advocates DO in fact want to take our guns. They've come out and admitted as much. Publicly. I am not a member of the NRA because they do not represent my beliefs regarding the 2nd Amendment. I do not compromise or negotiate. Compromise is how tyranny gains a foothold. Open carry - I would rather know somebody was armed rather than be surprised by it. Concealed carry advocates that resist or argue against open carry are weak-minded cowards with no conviction. They are of the mind that out-of-site-out-of-mind is the answer so as not to alarm the firearm-phobic population. I'm not saying everyone has to carry (in fact, not everybody should), and their discomfort with me doing so doesn't impact me one bit. I don't actually carry myself, but don't go anywhere with a firearm. Too much random crap happens on a much too frequent basis, and I'd like to think that if I got caught up in something, I'd be able to fight back. I suppose it's nice that people in other countries can wander about without a care in the world, but the sad reality is that the US is not the rest of the world. If there was no crime in the US, I wouldn't take a gun everywhere I go, but that does not mean I trust the government. Nobody should. I had forefathers in the Revolutionary War. I understand what they fought for, and why. I refuse to dishonor their convictions and sacrifices through compromise and negotiation.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Quote:
The gun control advocates DO in fact want to take our guns. They've come out and admitted as much. Publicly.
(Some) people will say that, especially in the aftermath of a shooting, but it's not a serious proposition. If nothing else, every minor step along the way would be held up forever in the courts. It's not going to happen.
-
Laws can always be changed, but personally I think it’s beside the point. Not many people are seriously calling for this, on the grounds of practicality and realpolitik. The USA is awash with guns – there is no practical way of removing them - and people who would literally fight to the death to keep them. So, you have them and you’re going to keep them, so you need to start from there. John, I know you don’t think any non-American can have a valid opinion about your country, but here goes: (and sometimes, you know, looking at things from the outside isn’t such a bad idea.) Nothing will change in the USA until there some critical mass relating to public opinion is achieved, and personally I think the NRA should be leading the way in this. They need to stop bleating about people attacking their rights – as I say, no one is pong to take their toys away – and adopt an attitude about responsible gun ownership, and disassociating owning guns from images of masculinity. The days of the Wild West are long gone, yet I can’t help feel that there is a deep-rooted element of the male American psyche that still sees themselves as the archetypal “cowboy”: the strong, independent man standing up against authority and forging his own way in the world, with his gun doing the talking. Yee haw. Having said no-one will take your toys away, there are a couple of caveats to that: 1) “Open Carry” laws (in those States that have it). There is no good reason in this day and age for walking down the street with a gun strapped to your hip. Get over it, and stop allowing it. 2) There is an argument for banning some of the more seriously heavy shit, or at least from allowing just anyone to buy them. But again, this really needs the NRA to get on board. They come over as an extremist organisation fighting for their life and rights – but they’d do better to relax their attitude and accept that there is a problem in the country, and that they could be a part of the solution, instead of the haven for nutjobs that they are. Stop worrying about the law and start looking at attudes.
A_Griffin wrote:
I can’t help feel that there is a deep-rooted element of the male American psyche that still sees themselves as the archetypal “cowboy”: the strong, independent man standing up against authority and forging his own way in the world, with his gun doing the talking. Yee haw.
And this is why your opinion is not appreciated on this subject. Because you have a bias that is so wrong.
A_Griffin wrote:
There is no good reason in this day and age for walking down the street with a gun strapped to your hip.
No one actually does walk with a gun out, at least not in the various states that I have lived in. I imagine people would freak out if someone were actually carrying a gun down the street. Which speaks more to how Americans see guns and also again shows why your opinion is not based on facts.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Unspoken secret - the NRA is working with the government. "Gun control" isn't about guns. It's about control. The gun control advocates DO in fact want to take our guns. They've come out and admitted as much. Publicly. I am not a member of the NRA because they do not represent my beliefs regarding the 2nd Amendment. I do not compromise or negotiate. Compromise is how tyranny gains a foothold. Open carry - I would rather know somebody was armed rather than be surprised by it. Concealed carry advocates that resist or argue against open carry are weak-minded cowards with no conviction. They are of the mind that out-of-site-out-of-mind is the answer so as not to alarm the firearm-phobic population. I'm not saying everyone has to carry (in fact, not everybody should), and their discomfort with me doing so doesn't impact me one bit. I don't actually carry myself, but don't go anywhere with a firearm. Too much random crap happens on a much too frequent basis, and I'd like to think that if I got caught up in something, I'd be able to fight back. I suppose it's nice that people in other countries can wander about without a care in the world, but the sad reality is that the US is not the rest of the world. If there was no crime in the US, I wouldn't take a gun everywhere I go, but that does not mean I trust the government. Nobody should. I had forefathers in the Revolutionary War. I understand what they fought for, and why. I refuse to dishonor their convictions and sacrifices through compromise and negotiation.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Aside from gun control, are there any other constitutional related issues that you will not "compromise or negotiate" on so as not to dishonor the "convictions and sacrifices" of your forefathers? If so, what might they be?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I can’t help feel that there is a deep-rooted element of the male American psyche that still sees themselves as the archetypal “cowboy”: the strong, independent man standing up against authority and forging his own way in the world, with his gun doing the talking. Yee haw.
And this is why your opinion is not appreciated on this subject. Because you have a bias that is so wrong.
A_Griffin wrote:
There is no good reason in this day and age for walking down the street with a gun strapped to your hip.
No one actually does walk with a gun out, at least not in the various states that I have lived in. I imagine people would freak out if someone were actually carrying a gun down the street. Which speaks more to how Americans see guns and also again shows why your opinion is not based on facts.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Quote:
you have a bias that is so wrong
Well…. Does it really need spelling out that I am perfectly aware it was a generalisation not applicable to everyone? And also that I only said it is an element of their psyche, not their entire personality? Calm down, dear...
Quote:
No one actually does walk with a gun
Maybe you just haven’t lived in the right (wrong) places. Of course it’s not the norm, anywhere, but people do – I’ve seen it with mine own eyes. And if no-one did, or cared, why the fuss about keeping the law?
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
-
Laws can always be changed, but personally I think it’s beside the point. Not many people are seriously calling for this, on the grounds of practicality and realpolitik. The USA is awash with guns – there is no practical way of removing them - and people who would literally fight to the death to keep them. So, you have them and you’re going to keep them, so you need to start from there. John, I know you don’t think any non-American can have a valid opinion about your country, but here goes: (and sometimes, you know, looking at things from the outside isn’t such a bad idea.) Nothing will change in the USA until there some critical mass relating to public opinion is achieved, and personally I think the NRA should be leading the way in this. They need to stop bleating about people attacking their rights – as I say, no one is pong to take their toys away – and adopt an attitude about responsible gun ownership, and disassociating owning guns from images of masculinity. The days of the Wild West are long gone, yet I can’t help feel that there is a deep-rooted element of the male American psyche that still sees themselves as the archetypal “cowboy”: the strong, independent man standing up against authority and forging his own way in the world, with his gun doing the talking. Yee haw. Having said no-one will take your toys away, there are a couple of caveats to that: 1) “Open Carry” laws (in those States that have it). There is no good reason in this day and age for walking down the street with a gun strapped to your hip. Get over it, and stop allowing it. 2) There is an argument for banning some of the more seriously heavy shit, or at least from allowing just anyone to buy them. But again, this really needs the NRA to get on board. They come over as an extremist organisation fighting for their life and rights – but they’d do better to relax their attitude and accept that there is a problem in the country, and that they could be a part of the solution, instead of the haven for nutjobs that they are. Stop worrying about the law and start looking at attudes.
While in CA I got to know a security guard (from an agency) who was employed by a bar I used to go to a lot when they were busy at weekends (had to go outside to smoke so we used to chat a lot). He was armed, it was part of his job, open carry. (Guns dont scare me, I grew up doing a fair bit of shooting, hunting deer, rabbit, pigeons, and target shooting.) He told me of a town in Texas where open carry is mandated. They NEVER have any trouble in bars. :) Its a young, wild country still, they still need guns for self protection (and of course the fundamental issue of the populace being armed so that an abusive government can not repress them which goes back to the oppression of the public in Europe by governments there at the time. Dont forget, the US is a country for peasants. For the common man. Europe was feudal at the time). Anyway, given the state of Britain today, with violent crime rife and the police unable to cope with it, dont you think perhaps we should be armed?
-
I found this in a comment to a news story relating to the call to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. My only editing was to provide white space between paragraphs. ------------------ There are NO LAWFUL CIRCUMSTANCES under which any governmental entity in America can take weapons of military utility from the American people. All regulation of arms in effect in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government has NOT been enumerated any power to regulate our "arms" and are, in fact, specifically ENJOINED from infringing upon our RIGHT TO ARMS or even a small part of it, in any way whatsoever. Any "sworn officer" enforcing unconstitutional legislation upon their fellow Americans are "UNLAWFUL ACTORS" and are, in fact, committing Federal Felonies that are punishable by death pursuant to their own "code." Re. 18 USC 241, 242. Background Checks are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they violate numerous provisions of our Supreme Law. It's not even arguable, to wit: FIRST AMENDMENT Right to a Presumption against the Imposition of PRIOR RESTRAINTS on the exercise of guaranteed rights/liberties/immunities which actually withstood the government's claim of a NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST! 2ND AMENDMENT Rights - "Arms" are "weapons of military utility" and the government is ENJOINED from "infringing" our right to arms in any way as: ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO VIOLATE. "Penumbra" rights (see 9th below) guarantee us access to attachments, ammo, appurtenances, accessories we desire. FOURTH AMENDMENT Right to be secure in our “effects”. Rights are “effects”. FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights to Due Process BEFORE being deprived of unalienable rights, to remain silent (Do we have to fill out a questionnaire before we can vote, or write a letter to the newspaper? Should we have to?), to not self-incriminate (just answer any of those questions wrong!)! NINTH AMENDMENT - numerous "Penumbra Rights” related to the Amendments mentioned and possibly other related fundamental, individual rights retained! And, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT prohibition on states passing and enforcing laws which abridge the rights (“immunities”) of citizens and the right to Due Process – again! To name a few! And, a public vote of the ignorant people in NO WAY diminishes our fundamental, inherent, creator endowed, unalienable RIGHTS! No political entity has any lawful power to disparage or deny such RIGHTS. It's NOT the "Bill of NEEDS" and every "sworn officer", state or federal, in America is required to execute a sacred Oath of Office pledging to "su
First of all, I want to make it clear that what I'm going to say is in support of what John Simmons posted but what we are taking about ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! The American Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by many years. The US Constitution is not about granting rights to citizens, it is about citizens delegating powers to a government, those powers being the power to defend and maintain rights predating the US Constitution. That is important because what government grants it can deny. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that these rights are "unalienable", they can't be alienated from us. They are not something that we have, they are what we are. It is not correct to say "I have a right to arm myself". It is correct to say "I AM right to arm myself". I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. Now this is important because people say "well, we can change that law - we can repeal that amendment". Yes, you can. But that would be tyranny. Because even if you repeal the entire bill of rights, or for that matter, the entire US Constitution, it does not change that I AM right to arm myself. I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE. And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
-
First of all, I want to make it clear that what I'm going to say is in support of what John Simmons posted but what we are taking about ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! The American Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by many years. The US Constitution is not about granting rights to citizens, it is about citizens delegating powers to a government, those powers being the power to defend and maintain rights predating the US Constitution. That is important because what government grants it can deny. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that these rights are "unalienable", they can't be alienated from us. They are not something that we have, they are what we are. It is not correct to say "I have a right to arm myself". It is correct to say "I AM right to arm myself". I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. Now this is important because people say "well, we can change that law - we can repeal that amendment". Yes, you can. But that would be tyranny. Because even if you repeal the entire bill of rights, or for that matter, the entire US Constitution, it does not change that I AM right to arm myself. I AM right to defend myself and my property. I AM right to speak freely. I AM right to worship how I chose. I AM right to not allow unreasonable searches and seizures of my things. I AM right to not answer your questions. HUMAN RIGHTS PREDATED ANY GOVERNMENT - THEY ARE UNALIENABLE. And this is the dirty little secret that leftist liberals just don't like.
OK but you realize that's just a fancy opinion about how those rights *should* work, right? Reality isn't as nice as that. You might call it tyranny, but governments can give (and not give) the people they rule over whatever set of rights they want. Power works. Fancy ideals don't actually *work*, but as long as enough people believe strongly enough, you can pretend that some rights are unalienable. They're only unalienable until they're not.
-
While in CA I got to know a security guard (from an agency) who was employed by a bar I used to go to a lot when they were busy at weekends (had to go outside to smoke so we used to chat a lot). He was armed, it was part of his job, open carry. (Guns dont scare me, I grew up doing a fair bit of shooting, hunting deer, rabbit, pigeons, and target shooting.) He told me of a town in Texas where open carry is mandated. They NEVER have any trouble in bars. :) Its a young, wild country still, they still need guns for self protection (and of course the fundamental issue of the populace being armed so that an abusive government can not repress them which goes back to the oppression of the public in Europe by governments there at the time. Dont forget, the US is a country for peasants. For the common man. Europe was feudal at the time). Anyway, given the state of Britain today, with violent crime rife and the police unable to cope with it, dont you think perhaps we should be armed?
I do. Defense situations last mere seconds, and the police takes minutes (LOL half an hour if lucky, at least where I live) to arrive. They can still apprehend the assaulter, draw a nice chalk line on the body of the victim, and release the assaulter because laws protect criminals.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
I do. Defense situations last mere seconds, and the police takes minutes (LOL half an hour if lucky, at least where I live) to arrive. They can still apprehend the assaulter, draw a nice chalk line on the body of the victim, and release the assaulter because laws protect criminals.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
I recall an elderly gent in court for possession of an offensive weapon some years back. It was a sword stick. He was mugged on the tube by a bunch of blacks and he put them in hospital. Now THAT is style! :)
-
While in CA I got to know a security guard (from an agency) who was employed by a bar I used to go to a lot when they were busy at weekends (had to go outside to smoke so we used to chat a lot). He was armed, it was part of his job, open carry. (Guns dont scare me, I grew up doing a fair bit of shooting, hunting deer, rabbit, pigeons, and target shooting.) He told me of a town in Texas where open carry is mandated. They NEVER have any trouble in bars. :) Its a young, wild country still, they still need guns for self protection (and of course the fundamental issue of the populace being armed so that an abusive government can not repress them which goes back to the oppression of the public in Europe by governments there at the time. Dont forget, the US is a country for peasants. For the common man. Europe was feudal at the time). Anyway, given the state of Britain today, with violent crime rife and the police unable to cope with it, dont you think perhaps we should be armed?
Oh Matt - you should know better than to cite personal anecdotes of evidence of anything. The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy, to say the least. I could cite numerous studies refuting it, and no doubt you’d then come back with others (no doubt funded by the NRA) that support it – but even if it’s true that it helps locally, it does not help in the wider community – all you do is push the violence elsewhere. Because there is one indisputable fact that no-one needs an academic study on to see: The USA has lots of guns, and a high rate of gun crime and deaths by gunshot. Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them. So far so simple. And the USA has, by far, the highest number of guns per person in the world (and if you restrict that to guns above a certain calibre, the numbers are even higher). But still, the real question is: why does it have the problems it does with them? And until they start addressing this and finding a way to deal with it, there will continue to be a problem there. No problem is ever until you get to the root of it. And you surely cannot be serious in suggesting that Britain would be better off if we legalised guns here as well.
-
I recall an elderly gent in court for possession of an offensive weapon some years back. It was a sword stick. He was mugged on the tube by a bunch of blacks and he put them in hospital. Now THAT is style! :)
Many people, common honest workers, in Italy are now packing at least a knife for self defense, risking more jail time than the perpetrators (if you have something to lose the system f***s you, if you are a criminal the system protects you because "poor guy"). Still they (we, actually) accept the risk because it's easier to get out of jail than from a casket.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Oh Matt - you should know better than to cite personal anecdotes of evidence of anything. The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy, to say the least. I could cite numerous studies refuting it, and no doubt you’d then come back with others (no doubt funded by the NRA) that support it – but even if it’s true that it helps locally, it does not help in the wider community – all you do is push the violence elsewhere. Because there is one indisputable fact that no-one needs an academic study on to see: The USA has lots of guns, and a high rate of gun crime and deaths by gunshot. Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them. So far so simple. And the USA has, by far, the highest number of guns per person in the world (and if you restrict that to guns above a certain calibre, the numbers are even higher). But still, the real question is: why does it have the problems it does with them? And until they start addressing this and finding a way to deal with it, there will continue to be a problem there. No problem is ever until you get to the root of it. And you surely cannot be serious in suggesting that Britain would be better off if we legalised guns here as well.
A_Griffin wrote:
The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy
Didnt say it did. That is your assumption about what I meant because you want an argument. :)
A_Griffin wrote:
Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them
And there, as always, you are completely wrong. Canada has far more guns per capita than the US but a very low gun crime rate. You really shouldnt imagine the world Griffin, you should experience it. ;P
-
Oh Matt - you should know better than to cite personal anecdotes of evidence of anything. The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy, to say the least. I could cite numerous studies refuting it, and no doubt you’d then come back with others (no doubt funded by the NRA) that support it – but even if it’s true that it helps locally, it does not help in the wider community – all you do is push the violence elsewhere. Because there is one indisputable fact that no-one needs an academic study on to see: The USA has lots of guns, and a high rate of gun crime and deaths by gunshot. Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them. So far so simple. And the USA has, by far, the highest number of guns per person in the world (and if you restrict that to guns above a certain calibre, the numbers are even higher). But still, the real question is: why does it have the problems it does with them? And until they start addressing this and finding a way to deal with it, there will continue to be a problem there. No problem is ever until you get to the root of it. And you surely cannot be serious in suggesting that Britain would be better off if we legalised guns here as well.
Weapons are easy to find illegally, and cheaper too. UK and Australia are islands, which severely limits the ways illegal stuff can cross the border. In the continent the story is different - those :elephant:s that shot on people at Bataclan got their full automatic (illegal anywhere) weapons on the black market for 200€ each, while a cheap chinese semiauto Type56 costs at least 700€. In Italy mafia is well armed... and criminals manage to steal hundreds of guns from polic departments (when corrupt policemen don't directly sell the confiscated weapons [and drugs too]). See Switzerland for gun crime - it's the most armed nation in Europe and yet...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Many people, common honest workers, in Italy are now packing at least a knife for self defense, risking more jail time than the perpetrators (if you have something to lose the system f***s you, if you are a criminal the system protects you because "poor guy"). Still they (we, actually) accept the risk because it's easier to get out of jail than from a casket.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Do you have trial by jury in Italy? In the UK we do, and people will generally side with the defendant in this case (as do the police). I remember a story my wife, ex PC, told me. She went to a break in where the owner had hit the burglar over the head with a cricket bat as he was leaving. Her sergeant, who was with her, said, "No, you hit him AS he was coming to wards you, because you felt threatened". Eventually the owner caught on and agreed that is what happened. :)
-
A_Griffin wrote:
The evidence that carrying guns lowers crime is sketchy
Didnt say it did. That is your assumption about what I meant because you want an argument. :)
A_Griffin wrote:
Countries that don’t have many guns have fewer gun crimes or people killed by them
And there, as always, you are completely wrong. Canada has far more guns per capita than the US but a very low gun crime rate. You really shouldnt imagine the world Griffin, you should experience it. ;P
-
Do you have trial by jury in Italy? In the UK we do, and people will generally side with the defendant in this case (as do the police). I remember a story my wife, ex PC, told me. She went to a break in where the owner had hit the burglar over the head with a cricket bat as he was leaving. Her sergeant, who was with her, said, "No, you hit him AS he was coming to wards you, because you felt threatened". Eventually the owner caught on and agreed that is what happened. :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do you have trial by jury in Italy?
Only in very specific cases and they are becoming rarer as the time passes. Besides, a typical trial lasts 5 to 20 years and the judicial system is heavily left-wing leaned. Anedocte: judges (even those who can act only on civil causes for less than 30k€ damage requests) and prosecutors can buy, deteain and carry waepons on themselves without so much as the mandatory mental health visit common people need to do to simply access a gun range.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do you have trial by jury in Italy?
Only in very specific cases and they are becoming rarer as the time passes. Besides, a typical trial lasts 5 to 20 years and the judicial system is heavily left-wing leaned. Anedocte: judges (even those who can act only on civil causes for less than 30k€ damage requests) and prosecutors can buy, deteain and carry waepons on themselves without so much as the mandatory mental health visit common people need to do to simply access a gun range.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Ah, all big cases, ie beyond basic affray and motoring crimes, go before a jury in the UK. You have to be judged by your peers here. As in the US. We try to have a fair system. Right, you see this is why the US has laws that allow citizens to carry guns, so that the system is not biased against them.
-
Quote:
Canada has far more guns per capita than the US
Don't know where you get that figure from, but it doesn't appear to be from this planet.
I heard it on a program about gun crime. It was either guns per capita, or gun crimes per guns. One of the two. Anyway the point is that countries with high gun ownership dont mean high gun crime.
-
Weapons are easy to find illegally, and cheaper too. UK and Australia are islands, which severely limits the ways illegal stuff can cross the border. In the continent the story is different - those :elephant:s that shot on people at Bataclan got their full automatic (illegal anywhere) weapons on the black market for 200€ each, while a cheap chinese semiauto Type56 costs at least 700€. In Italy mafia is well armed... and criminals manage to steal hundreds of guns from polic departments (when corrupt policemen don't directly sell the confiscated weapons [and drugs too]). See Switzerland for gun crime - it's the most armed nation in Europe and yet...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
I know a Moroccan (boy friend of an old female friend I have) who has relative in Lyon. They have AK 47s and are involved in some shady stuff. Guns are VERY easy to get on the continent, especially since the wall came down.
