Stupid Yanks

[Bifta]

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?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Bifta

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

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.

[Russ]

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?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.
____________

Originally Posted by Russ D

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?

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Bifta

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?

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.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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?

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

Has the murder rate dropped significantly with a gun ban?

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.

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.
____________

Originally Posted by Bifta

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.

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.

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.

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

I'll get back to you Bifta.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by punky

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

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?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Bifta

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?

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

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by punky

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

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.

Originally Posted by punky

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.

From the news item you linked to:

Originally Posted by HoustonChronicle.com

Police said the woman was grabbed by one of the armed men and held briefly. When she struggled free, her son exchanged gunfire with the men as they ran away, police said.

Police called to investigate the incident began a search of the area and, about 1 a.m., the body of a gunshot victim was found in the back yard of a home five houses from where the skirmish took place.

Police said evidence probably will be referred to a grand jury without charges.

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.

[Stuart]

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.

[Ramrod]

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

FOUR THOUSAND people have suffered shooting injuries in a single year as gun crime continues to rise across Britain. Figures released by the Home Office show that 81 people were shot dead and more than 500 were seriously wounded between April 2002 and March 2003.

Experts say the number of people admitted to hospital with gunshot injuries is much higher than those released by the government because many hospitals do not record the treatment of gunshot wounds, or the method of collecting data differs between hospitals.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

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