Stupid Yanks
 

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...284452,00.html

Does their arrogance know no bounds?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Nope, their arrogance can be quite boundless at times ;)

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

It's not just arrogance......it's also ignorance and knuckle dragging stupidity :dozey:

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Knuckle dragging? Must be the weight of the guns in their hands pulling their arms down ;) America refuses to tighten it's gun control as it sees the right to bear arms as perfectly logical and normal, obviously it's nothing to do with the ammount of money that the gun lobbyists push at politicians or the ammount of money that the gun trade makes the government in taxes and backhanders.. I mean gifts ;)

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

The Americans think the answer to everything is firepower. This is not a view I agree with.

Anyway, since when has the American gun lobby been sensible or tactful? They were giving interviews in Colombine the day after those students went mad.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Turkey doesn't need a knee-jerk obsessive gun control policies like we have. After all that won't reduce gun crime. Gun crime has gone up year after year since Dunblane, and so has knife crime.

I feel sorry for the parents, my heart really goes out to them, especially with the callous comments they have recieved. I don't have a child and noone has killed a member of my my family *touches wood*, so I can't pretend to have that level of emotion, but I am pretty sure if one of my family members was run over, I wouldn't try and ban cars.

The stats speak for themselves. The areas in the US with looser control policies have less gun crime than stricters states. Canada has proportionally more guns than the US, but with much few gun crime and deaths. Guns don't kill people, stupid people kill people. i'd rather deal with the problem of stupid people than guns.

Banning things never has, and never will work. If people can import drugs which smell, you don't think people can import a lump of metal that doesn't? Banning something brings it under the control of criminals and escalates the problem. People wonder about gun control and Columbine. Most of the people wonder about gun control and how it would have affect Columbine. It wouldn't. More people were killed by explosives than shot, and explosives most definately are illegal. Didn't stop the kids did it?

Shooting fans aren't bulletproof, and neither are our familes. We don't want to give psychos guns anymore than you guys do, but these crushingly obsessive policies on guns don't work. If you ban something, all you do is oppress the law abiding people and make it so only the criminals have guns.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

And that in a nutshell is the ultimate problem, it's not the guns that cause the deaths, it's the idiots pulling the triggers and until you deal with that side of the issue you will never reduce gun related crime/ deaths etc

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

One day America will learn, and then we will have to pick up the pieces.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

We are not in the position to 'pick up the pieces' America (effectivly) won WW2, They pput a man in space and they are extremely talented and powerful. Also we have enough problems of our own before we start telling america how to run theirs.

This america is dumb stuff in annoying me now. Labeling a whole country as stupid is stupid. It like the US calling us NAZI's because of Prince Harry

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Erm....they didn't.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Agreed, they helped a little. But they did not win the war.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

____________

D-Day

American Troops: 73,000
British Troops: 61,715

They were roughly equal and one operation, although this one was big, does not show the whole war. But not giving the americans credit for what they did is stupid. Would we have won with over 50% troops less?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

They didn't. They helped us, but bear in mind we had held the Germans back for years before the Americans commited any sizeable forces. The ONLY problem we had was lack of equipment (weaponry, ammunition etc). America provided that equipment.

Actually, if I remember my school history correctly, the Americans kidnapped the scientists who developed the V2 rocket. It's these scientists (who were German, I think) who enabled the Americans to put men in space. Didn't the Russians get there first anyway?
No, America is not dumb. They (as a country) are arrogant, which is why people get wound up by them.

As I have said in the past, Americans individually are amongst the nicest people I have met.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

List of casualties during WW2

Country Casualties
Russia 20 000 000
China 10 000 000 to 15 000 000
Germany & Japan 6 500 000 inc. 1 000 000 German civilians
Bengal 1 500 000 (mostly indirect in 1943)
Yugoslavia 1 300 000
Britain + colonials 620 000
Italy 500 000
France 500 000
Hungary 350 000 approx.
Poland 350 000 approx.
Romania 350 000 approx.
United States 300 000

Source

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

They wernt as in it as we were. They were relevently far but they helped a great deal. I think America had a big part to play in the war

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

That's never been in doubt, but they did not win the war for us or anyone else.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

ok, Well I take that bit back then. I think what i mean more is that it is a major doubt that we would have won the war without the americans.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I don't even think there was a major doubt, it just would have taken longer to acheive a 'win'.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Let's fill in the gaps in punky's argument.

He posits that areas of the US with looser gun laws (what are these, btw, concealed firearms?) have lower figures for gun crime, and I'm willing to go along with that, it seems logical*. However, we should compare the result of loose gun laws with the current situation of extremely tight gun laws in the UK before shouting hallelujah and investing in a .45 or two.

It's worth remembering that, globally, we have an absolutely miniscule gun control problem and a tiny number of gun deaths a year. I do not think this is unrelated to having some of the toughest laws around.

England and Wales usually has <100 gun murders a year (there are far more suicides, for instance, and of course the odd unfortunate accident), the last figure I can find is 80 in 2003 - this translates to .13 per 100,000 people.

The US, of course, has over five times the population and about 40 times the death rate, but this is so far in advance of any other civilised country (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the US is still civilised, although I have my doubts, and I'm definitely excluding Russia).

I'm perfectly willing to accept what appears obvious, that the US's appalling gun problem is cultural as well as legal and banning guns wouldn't really help much, it's much much deeper and probably related to all the other deep, serious structural issues in that incredible country.

In fact nearly everywhere you might consider a nice place to live (Spain, Germany, France, Italy) has more gun murders per unit of population than England and Wales, with the notable exception of Japan, which has, er, draconian gun control laws.
Canada, pre-the recent tightening, is about 4 times higher than England and Wales.

And results in far more murders and is rising at a far greater rate. I'm not sure that looser gun laws would necessarily reduce this.

As for the idea that banning something drives it underground, perfectly true, witness Prohibition and current drug laws. Legalising something, however, certainly makes more people use it and brings the price down. I fail to see what we gain by having more people using cheaper firearms, which after all have precisely one purpose. The point of the legalisation argument for, say, cannabis or whisky is that it's fairly harmless, or no more harmful than a cigarette. No way is a gun remotely harmless.

Given the choice between waiting for less stupid humans to evolve and banning guns, I'd ban guns - it clearly works and is actually feasible. If you want to reduce Britain's gun crime, legalise crack cocaine, since the illegal trade in that commodity appears to be pretty much responsible for the recent increase.

Incidentally, Canada has recently tightened up its gun control laws.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/GunControlLaws.html

* because they're in the South and away from the east/west coast urban centres where most shootings are, it's an incredibly localised problem in the US.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

On the whole I'd agree with BBKing, though this is only my gut feeling as I don't have the stats to back it up.


I'd be interested to know, of the gun killings in the US, how many are people killed by their own gun (say, by a burglar), how many by a family member's gun (say, in a 'domestic' though I hate the word), how many are kids/ne'er do wells killed by a householder who mistook them (or couldn't care about the difference) for someone posing a danger to them?

I bet the number of people who've actually successfully prevented a burgalry etc using their own gun can't be that high ?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

As an aside, i'll explain it a bit more. The gun laws are split into two groups. The laxer states which only require a federal background check and registration. The stricter states require an actual license. The CCW (Carry Concealed Weapons) permit is a license you need to have training to recieve, no matter where you are, as it is federal. Some particular weapons and accessories need extreme control. A friend of mine wanted to have a silencer for a gun he had, and he had to get the Sheriff for his county, no less (Not just any deputy, but the actual elected Sheriff, similiar to a Chief Superintendent in the UK) to personally sign off on it, to show that he is happy with the transfer. Needless to say it is not that easy to get or common.

A few other points:

1. Gun control doesn't prevent gun crime. I think honestly, if it did, then everyone who shoots worldwide (yes, there is another function to having a gun, like with archery. And don't forget how big gun hunting is in the US too), would just probably accept it.

2. I wasn't trying to link gun crime with knife crime, but it is a force of habit nowadays, as the media seems to. Certainly is true that if someone wants to kill someone, then if they can't get a gun, they'll do it some other way, and knives seem like the next logcal weapon. I remember one person attacked a school with a Samurai sword? Gun control doesn't prevent crime, it just pushes it on to other weapons. That isn't conclusive of course, as gun crime still goes up, not down.

3. We talk about gun control, but I think the whole idea behind the Sky article isn't gun control, but is trying to further taint the NRA (National Rifle Association). The NRA has been villified for over a century as being a bunch of savages. Rednecks and cowboys, that eat babies and kittens. NRA bashing is probably more prevalent than US bashing. Like with any and all organisations there are distasteful, moronic and otherwise desirable individuals. I certainly won't defend them, but i'll point out that are kinds of people in there, like police officers, judges, doctors, mayors, etc. Some members are actually quite smart and avoid shooting everyone they meet.

I never said there was only two options. But neither one on their own works. People murdering other people will never cease, regardless how much we evolve, and neither will banning guns I'd ban guns - as you seem to have said in your post.

Which confuses me about...

One other thing. The vagueness of the term: gun control. People who shoot, and want a form of self defense aren't bulletproof. We want guns out of the hands of the irresponsible too, but not out of the responsible's hands too. We all want control, but not complete and outright bans, because that causes problems and steps backwards. Anywho, doesn't Jefferson's infamous quote: fit the gun control argument well? Especially as he made sure the right to bear arms as a constituional right.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

No - rappers do.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Yes it does, to a very great extent. BBking just did a great job of pulling together some statistics that prove it. Surely if you're going to re-state your claim to the contrary, the onus is now on you to provide some evidence in support of it?

Again, a claim not backed up by any evidence. It might well be the case that if someone is intent on murder, they will do it with whichever weapon they can get, but what about more impulsive killings? Might fewer manslaughters occur in the US if lethal weapons were not so readily available? Might a few more lost travellers not still be alive, instead of having been gunned down while knocking for directions, having been mistaken for an intruder?

And Hitler was a great dinner party guest, just so long as you didn't get him started on politics. The fact that someone is a respectable pillar of a community does not render him immune from being sincerely wrong, or tainted by the same bizarre, cultural obsession with guns as the rest of his countrymen.

What's this 'we' business? Are you in the NRA, or quoting from one of their pamphlets? ;)

As for Jefferson, that is an outrageous misuse of his words, ripping them completely out of context. Jefferson spoke in the early days of a nation that had fought for independence and was in peril of being re-subjugated by the British. The US Constitution must be read in that context, or else it loses its meaning. So, when you read 'freedom', understand it to mean the broad notion of every man being equal and able to forge the destiny of his life and his nation in contrast to living in a colony under an unelected monarch ; when you read 'right to bear arms', understand it to mean that every man must be ready, and prepared, to defend his freedom with his life.

To take a great historical document like the US constitution and reduce it to the status of an entitlement certificate for anyone who wants to own their own AK-47 is outrageous and selfish. Frankly I'm amazed that Americans in general allow the NRA to continue to misuse it in this way. Or could it be that the entire USA has become enslaved to the very document that was designed to set it free?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

He didn't prove anything. He just said lots of other countries have gun crime, even though they have restrictive gun control, which is why I said "which confuses me about..." On the other hand I have proved it. Gun crime has gone up since handguns were banned. It has everywhere else they have banned it. Places with laxer gun control has less gun crime that places with stricter gun control, in the US (and it isn't solely a population issue, think how populous Houston and Dallas are).


Impulse killings - precisely the type that would just grab a knife or baseball bat rather than sit through the 3 day cooling-off period. And aren't knives and baseball bats more readily available, and cheaper than a gun?


Yes, OK. You don't like guns, some other people do, so they are wrong. Riiiiiiiight. If they like to shoot the have some "bizarre, cultural obsession" eh? I don't like boybands. I would like to see them fail rather than succeed, but I don't question why people like them, and I certainly don't use insults to try and bend people to see the world exactly as I do.

I shoot for sport, but i'd never hunt. I just don't like it. I would never try and ban hunting though. I don't judge people, and I don't try and dictate to people how to live their lives. If you want to ban guns, then thats fine. I'll respect that, but I should get the same decency in return.


A bit of Freudian Slip here I guess, although I thought it was common knowlege. I shoot whenever I am in the US. And I am not the only one. When I am at the range, I always seem to a rather lot of Brits there.

And without a gun, faced with armed burgulars, makes it rather difficult doesn't it? Reminds me of this quote:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." sounds pretty clear to me. Jefferson was central to this amendment, he wrote about it in his book. So I am not twisting anything. He said, and believed both quotes. Luckily, in Jefferson's day, they didn't have to worry so much about rapists, burgulars, murderers or elitist liberals that think because they don't like to shoot, noone else should either. Even if they did, would make the admentment a bit long winded wouldn't it?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Clearly you and I were both reading different BBKing posts. He didn't simply state that other countries have gun crime despite restrictive gun control, he pointed out that "England and Wales usually has <100 gun murders a year (there are far more suicides, for instance, and of course the odd unfortunate accident), the last figure I can find is 80 in 2003 - this translates to .13 per 100,000 people. The US, of course, has over five times the population and about 40 times the death rate...". Against that backdrop, it is sheer intellectual dishonesty to try to claim that British gun control laws are responsible for rising gun crime in the UK. Our gun crime is at such a tiny level that any possible correlation with post-Dunblane laws and a recent rise in incidents is utterly dwarfed by the massive correlation between tight laws/low crime in the UK, and lax laws/big crime in the US. And just for good measure, BBK also pointed out that: "In fact nearly everywhere you might consider a nice place to live (Spain, Germany, France, Italy) has more gun murders per unit of population than England and Wales, with the notable exception of Japan, which has, er, draconian gun control laws." The link between the legal availability of lethal weapons and their use in illegal acts is plain to see.

Yes, and less likely to be fatal at a single stroke in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing. But surely you're not trying to suggest that ownership of a gun is no more controversial than ownership of a knife or a baseball bat?

/Sigh

I earned marksman standard with the .22 rifle while in the Combined Cadet Force at school. I have no objection to guns per se, but I believe this to be one of the areas where the potential for harm to be caused by a minority of people with guns over-rides the so called 'right' to own a gun. As for insults ... not a bit of it. I believe the American love affair with the gun can rightly be called a cultural obsession. And I believe it is ridiculous.

I don't like boybands either. But boybands don't normally murder people.

I'm not sure what I've said that's indecent, except perhaps for disagreeing with you?

Well, when in Rome, eh.

You completely missed everything I said about taking quotes out of context. Jefferson did indeed say the above. But you are assuming that he meant the people ought to have the right to bear arms in case of getting raped or burgled. You are assuming that if such things were common back then, he would have mentioned it in the text. You have no basis in historical fact for making any such assumption. When you take a quote, or the entire amendment, which was written specifically to address the threat of invasion, and try to make it into a charter to own a lethal weapon for any of the other reasons above - reasons that Jefferson never mentioned - then you are 'twisting' (your words) what Jefferson said to make it fit your belief.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Chris T: Tried to rep you. but can't as a have to spread it around.. I do agree with your last two posts though.

Punky: I personally don't think 90% of people who own guns would ever use them in anger against another person, but why make things easier for the 10% that would? A friend of mine has experience of guns first hand. Her dad was licenced (in this country) to hold a shotgun. She got home one day to find her dad pointing the (apparently loaded) shotgun in her face and threatening to kill her.

We also seem to increasingly be suffering from a "gang" culture, and in some areas, it's increasingly normal for a young kid to go into a late night shop, point a gun at the shopkeeper and demand all his/her money.

Now, I am not saying that this applies to America or Canada (I suspect it applies to parts of both, but don't really know enough to be sure), and I am not saying banning guns would stop the supply of guns to these people. I am saying that banning guns would restrict the supply of guns to these people though.

Guns may not kill people, but they do enable a person who otherwise may not be able, to kill someone.
____________


Maybe, seeing as America has armed forces that are supposedly very capable, it is time to repeal that part of the constitution. Not that this will ever happen though.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

That is true, about 10 so far this month in my area, thankfully the council got wise and has evicted those responsible. The amount of guns siezed and ammo was large. Sadly though some people are to stupid to own such a device.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Anyone interested in understanding the sheer stupidity of those in America's gun toting lobby should visit this Facts You Can Use site for the trigger happy: http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/facts.htm My particular favourites are the list of top 10 reasons for ER admissions - ban baseball bats now! - and the sleight of hand which sees the bringing together of Japan's low murder AND high suicide rates and setting them against the combined figures for the US (roughly 7 x higher murder rate, two-thirds lower suicide rate) to determine that " the combined murder and suicide rates in Japan and the U.S. are nearly equal even though firearms are virtually non-existent in Japan" Brilliant, albeit very, very stupid.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

American forces capable??

What about the number of FRIENDLY casualties in Kuwait,Afghanistan and Iraq?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I think you've been in the USA for too long, you're turning into Jerrek, completely abstract example btw, people buy guns to shoot things, they buy cars to get around in, can you spot the difference?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I did say "supposedly"...

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

They are capable of defeating the enemy, just not of differentiating between the enemy and their allies.

for the sake of accuracy, there were a large number of friendly fire incidents in the recent gulf conflict in which the Americans were either not involved (British against British happened a few times), or were actually fired upon first, and merely returned fire - unfortunately their firepower is such that any return fire will cause huge damage to the onther combatant.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

You give me the USA's defense budget and I'm sure even I could win a war or two.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

You give me the USA's foreign policies and I could start a few wars!

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Exxxcellent .. together we could pretend to rule the world! (Funny how fantasy reflects reality sometimes)

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

*visions of George Dubya bush sitting on the carpet twanging his banjo and sucking on some straw..

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

1. Gun crime is falling in the US a lot. US DOJ website. and again. Interesting reading.

2. http://www.connected.gov.uk/facts/statistics/index.html

3. As Scastle has already said the vast majority of gun crime is commited by gangs. The same gangs that deal in drugs despite being them being banned as well. When you ban gun only the criminals have them. Peaceful law abiding citizens who use guns don't influence the stats enough, only criminal activity as a whole. You have banned guns, now what? Gangs are still using them, and getting them with suprising ease.

4. Can you imagine someone saying this? "If only I had a gun, he'd be so dead right now. All I have are these lousy knives, baseball bats, swords, and cars around. But if I had a gun i'd kill him."

5. If you were hoenstly trying to keep the debate civil, and meant no disrespect then I appologize. I felt a distinct tone of animostiy in your post, wether it was real or imagined. In that respect I think this will be my last post on it, so it doesn't go the way of others.

6. Are you calling me a troll Bifta?. I was hoping that (especially looking at my reputation) that people would think I wasn't trolling but voicing my opinions in a respectful manner and engaging in a fair and decent debate, even if my opinions do go against the vast majority here. I have always tried to moderate my posts heavily, not to try and inflame people.

But to answer your question, shooting guns is fun (IMO), hunting (other people think) is fun (and a really big industry), and of course self defence. Like the quote I mentioned before: Gun control: the theory that a 100lb woman should have to fistfight with a 250lb rapist. Even if I didn't shoot I would still support the right for responsible people to own and use guns. It is the same with hunting, and I will never hunt. It is as much a civil rights issue as well as a self-intrest one.

Noone has the answer. If anyone knew how to fix gun crime, then it wouldn't exist? And if someone knows something the governments of the world don't, then please share with us and pick up your Nobel Peace Prize. There will always be crime, always be murders, and always be people illegally using guns, importing and distributing them regardless of wether they are illegal or not.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I'll admit, I don't have time to go through those stats, but seeing as guns were also legal in 1993 when the figures were much higher, I see that as evidence of a reduction in crime in America, but one that doesn't necessarily have much to do with guns.


My point is that where guns are legally available, that ensures a greater supply of illegal guns for the gangs. After all, why would a gang member use a gun that is registered to them? They'll either buy a gun straight from the factory, or they'll buy one someone has nicked from a licenced gun owner.

That connected.gov link is interesting, it says the UK only has a gun problem in three areas, how many in the US?


Surely introducing a gun to an already tense situation would make that situation worse? I'll admit Rape is a bit more than a tense situation, but if the victim points a gun at the Rapist, it might make the rapist more likely to kill the victim?

BTW, I do respect your right to an opinion, just as I hope respect my right to a different one (or to argue with yours)..


But, I agree with you in one respect. I don't think we will ever entirely get rid of Gun related (or any violent) crime.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Sorry, can I just ask (you've mentioned it before) why do you keep on mentioning cars, baseball bats and knives for?

Knives have other legitimate uses, but cars and baseball bats are designed as a method of transport and something to hit a ball with.

While the gun is designed to kill. Okay some people might want to shoot holes in a piece of cardboard or a tin can, but that's what it was invented for, to kill.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

If your average burgler thought every house he was going to break into had potentially armed owners, chances are he'd carry a gun with him, chances are he'd probably also shoot the occupants as the first sign of a disturbance. Hunting and recreational use of firearms should be licensed in the USA in exactly the same way it is in the UK, you can't trust an American with a gun, ask the British Army ;)

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Chances are he/ she would also try to carry as big/ fast firing a gun as possible, this sort of weapon spiral is what puts semi and fully automatic weaponry on the streets :(

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Hmm. And when was the last drive by shooting you heard about in the UK? I'm convinced they're pretty rare over here .. wonder why that could be? Probably because it'd be just a .. Drive by, and sorry, people just driving buy don't scare me ;)

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I know you do but I am glad you said it. I respect everyone's opinions, and I don't think any more or less of you because you take a different stance on the gun control issue.

Because they can also be used to kill, along with 1 million other items. You can't just ban guns, pat yourself on the back and think you have done a good deed for mankind. Banning guns doesn't really seem to affect the murder rate, which is the ultimate goal. I have noticed looking at the stats that gun crime is more reliant of general crime levels, and fluctuate with it.

Yes, but criminals do already. Also noone ever said if you had a gun for self defence you had to use it. The way I see it, it is better to have gun and not need it, to be facing a situation where it might come in handy, and to not have one. People who wish to use a gun as self-defence are always at a disadvantage, because a homeowner would worry about being sued or going to jail. A burgular usually has no such worries. Noone ever said if you have a gun in your house you have to blow the hell out of anything that moves, but sometimes it helps.

If I honestly believed that a complete gun ban took the guns out of criminals' hands, then I would stand up for a firm ban. I believe even if it did, that the murder rate wouldn't change much, if at all, so where is the improvement?

Bush said if Congress requested an extension to the automatic weapons bill, he's sign it. But they never did. Automatic weapons are big, so hard to conceal, and the rapid firing makes them expensive and hard to aim with. People do think shooting is as easy as it looks. Fully autos are more of a status symbol than a practical weapon. At any rate a semi-automatic doesn't really fire much slower. and is much easier to aim with. Despite assault weapons being banned criminals seemed to get hold of them easily enough.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Computer monitors could also be used to kill?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Yup. By gun-banning we should ban them too.

It is myopic to think that gun crime is at the root of all murders, and that solving gun crime (which is actually a very generic term) will solve anything. It is the high rate of all murders we need to be solving, not just from selected weapons.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Punky, would you be happy if I lived in your neighbourhood and owned a small Nuclear device? Perhaps I'm a bit of a headcase, I might even feel like killing a few hundred thousand people by using it. But, it's ok, it shouldn't be banned because you can kill people with millions of other items and they're not. You don't seem to have grasped the basic principals of how dangerous guns can be, I could probably kill someone with my camera tripod, how many people do you know that'd have been battered to death courtesy of Jessops?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

It is probably different over there, but in London, it is quite high. Fairly often we hear about a drive by shooting in Tottenham or Ilford.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

OK I'm confused now. If I was going to kill someone and planned to do it with a gun, surely if they were banned I would not be able to get one (easily) therefore I would not kill them?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I'm sorry, I watch the national news every night and I can guarantee that if someone was shot dead in a drive by it'd probably be on and I don't recall seeing anything about regular shootings, maybe you could find a link on a news site for me because I'm not seeing any.
____________

No you see, the National Retard Association will tell you that if you were planning to kill someone that you'd find something else to kill them with anyway so you might as well buy that AK47 you've been eyeing up.

My opinion, which I've stated before for that redneck Jerrek was that if gun control saves even ONE life, then it's a good thing, hunting/target practice is NOT as important as a human life.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Trust me, any one who uses guns, or rather should use guns, appreciates the power they have. Sensible gun use teaches you to respect it. After all the gun I am using to shoot, could well shoot me, or a member of my family.

Noone I know, or have heard of, wants everyone to have any weapon. Shooting fans aren't bulletproof, and neither are our familys. A gun in the wrong hands could end up shooting me or a member of my family. A sensible gun licensing program is fine. Keep the gun out of the nutters' hands and into responsible citizens' hands. Doing that though, I think won't influence wether criminals can get their hands on guns. If they want a gun, they'll get one. People can smuggle drugs into this country, that smell, people can also smuggle in a lump of metal too.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

And as far as you're aware, people's mental health never deteriorates? Far better to not give the general public ANY opportunity to own a firearm.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Because you'd still want to kill them, you'd kill them.

Has the murder rate dropped significantly with a gun ban?

And there goes the tone of the debate. Anyways, national news like the BBc:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3538879.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2942806.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2517565.stm

Incidently, if ID cards saved one life? CCTV cameras? Speed limits? Make everywhere 5mph?

But gun sports with handguns are banned here and people still die, and at a higher rate than before the ban.
____________

And just give the criminals the oppotunity. Shootings-by-psychosis really aren't that common. A mental person is as dangerous with a car as a gun.

Edit: BTW We stand with the same beliefs. I don't want blood on my hands, and I want to save lives to where possible. I don't think banning guns really has any big impact on it.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I wish I could rep Bifta 5 times over in this thread.He's made me clap my hands and roar with laughter that many times. :D

However the reality is that as usual I have to go spread it about some more. :erm:

I'll get back to you Bifta. :tu:

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Excellent, so approximately one a year then, I wonder if you knew what the stats for drive by's would be in say ... Los Angeles? How about Little Haiti, from what I've read there's been 18 in the last 3 years, would you say that's comparable with the size of London?

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Those are just a couple I have found, it isn't a comprehensive report of every shooting since guns were (supposedly) banned.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

18 was all I found in Little Haiti doing a quick search, again, not exactly comprehensive but that's still 6 times the amount of gun death right there.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

From the news item you linked to:


So, let's unpack that a little (you may need to read the full article, I don't want to copy and paste the entre thing here).


A woman looks across the street and sees four men breaking into an empty house. She tells her son, who gets his gun before both of them head on over to investigate. Upon disturbing the men, who turn out to be armed, a brief struggle ensues during which the mother is momentarily held. She wrestles free, the men run for it ... and then a gunfight starts, in the public street, as the son and the crims open fire on one another as the crims are running away. One of the burglars is later found to have collapsed and died of a gunshot wound, a few streets away.


Now, we don't know who fired the first shot, but that really is besides the point. The fact is, the police are saying they will probably not press charges even though the son with the gun was not protecting his own life or property, was engaged in a gunfight in a public street where other lives must certainly have therefore been in peril, and despite the fact that he shot and killed a man who was running away.


As I'm sure most of us are now aware, the tabloid frenzy having dissipated, part of the reason for Tony Martin's conviction for manslaughter here in the UK was as a result of him shooting a burglar who was running away from him, and who therefore posed no risk to his life or wellbeing. It stuns me that in the USA, the situation outlined by the Houston Chronicle is considered to be acceptable, legal behaviour. You see, it is not just the fact that the son is allowed to own a gun - although it is certain that a man would be alive today if that son had not had a gun - it is everything surrounding the issue of gun ownership that is to a great extent justified and legitimised by the fact of gun ownership. If you've got the right to own a gun, you have the right to use it ...


I do not want to live in a country where it is acceptable for a man to chase burglars down the street and shoot at them. My wife or my son could get killed in such a situation.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

As I (and other people) have said, if a person gets in a situation where they need to defend themselves (say intruders in the house), that situation would be extremely tense. If they then introduce a gun into the situation, somebody is going to get shot.

That person may be the cirminal (intruder, attacker etc) or an innocent victim. If the criminal knows (or assumes) the other person is carrying a gun, he will carry one too.

Now, punky, imagine the situation. You are asleep at home with your family. You hear a noise. You get your gun, go downstairs and see a man walking out with your Video.

In the mean time, your family has woken up and has come to see what is happening. You warn the burgler, he ignores you, so you pull out your gun. His accomplice (who has been wandering around looking for valuables) walks back in the room, sees the gun and pulls out another gun.

In the ensuing choas, you each fire a shot. One bullet hits the wall, and one hits a member of your family (any member, even a pet). You don't know which hit what. How do you feel? Regardless of whether your bullet hit them or not, a bullet has, and, at the very least they will be in a awful lot of pain.

The other problem is, as I have stated earlier, where guns are not controlled, they are more freely available to criminals, who are more likely to use them.


I do agree that that are millions of objects that we all use that could kill. The problem is that if used correctly, these objects are not deisgned to kill (to use your cars example, generally to kill someone with a car you have to crash it or knock them over, cars are not designed to do this). Guns are (generally ) designed to kill or inure.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

If this kind of thing carries on getting worse then the only people without guns in this country will be the law abiding ones :erm:

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I wonder how those figures compare to the US figures for the same period..

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Don't get me wrong here.......I think guns should be banned atm. But they should also figure out better ways of keeping them out of the hands of criminals.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

I wonder how those figures break down in terms of gun toting crooks shooting other gun toting crooks. Let the shoot themselves up as long as the general population doesn't start arming itself and imposing its own martial law. Think about this. What would have been the outcome of the attack on the paediatrician's home if the News of the World inspired vigilantes (targeting paedophiles) had been armed? If they had brains they'd be dangerous but if they had guns too?!

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

You don't know the back story. There could have been a crime spree there recently, could have got burgled themselves. I will admit I didn't realise it was a nearby vacant house, I thought it was their own house. It might well be, people do own more than one house, especially out here.

That said there there are 2 points:

1. US law clearly states that the use of deadly force is authorised to (quote) "stop a forcible felony in progress against a human" (i.e. you can't shoot someone for raping your dog). However a forcible felony is a felony (serious crime) that includes violence. Armed robbery is most certainly included in the list of recognised forcible felonys. He was well within the law to do what he did. The law also clearly states, that you cannot use deadly force (even if you shoot to injure, that is classed as deadly force) to prevent a criminal escaping. Only law enforcement can. If the man was shot running away then they cops would have to press charges. The man must have been shot and then ran. Still, I don't suppose the burgulars will come back.

2. Should he have done anything at all? Yes, because of the good samaritan law he had to do something. Whilst he did what not many would have done, it was still legal. It would have acheived the desired result, burglars want an easy life too, not gun battles at every house they go to.

Scastle: If you use a gun in self defence, you are responsible for it. I mean that in the sense you have to accept the conseqences and outcomes. Noone is forced to pull a gun on anyone. It isn't, despite current media perception, the automatic response.

Noone is forced to use a gun like that, it is solely the person's choice, and therefore, their responsibility.

I don't advocate this person's actions, or that person's actions. If banning guns actually stopped criminals using them, even though I don't think that would affect crime levels, I think shooters would support it. But since it doesn't, and we have stats to prove that, it seems unnecessarily punitive. Think of how many criminals commit gun crime. Then think about how many people, every day, that have a gun, that doesn't.

Criminals will always have guns. For self defence, the homeowner, should have the option to meet the threat equally.

Re: Stupid Yanks
 

Just to remind you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm And we should give these people guns?