Ruger Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Just seen the news about it again. Going on about reimplementing the AWB. They've got such a sick mess, they need to do something radical not pi$$ about with things like that. It will only draw on and change nothing like when Bill Clinton tried last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Morgan Freeman has spoken. As I said, notoriety. This was brought up years ago over these incidents but it just gets ignored. Its one of many issues that needs addressing seriously. “You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why. It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooterand the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody. CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up,” this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next. You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.” ~ Morgan Freeman http://www.elephantj...morgan-freeman/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Ruger have you ever met CrossRoss? I think the two of you would get on very well!! Weapons of all kinds were designed to kill - defence or attack depends on your views about what it is being used for. Germany did not invent the gun - as with all weapons it was designed as a better way to kill or as a way around a new defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Members of the Westboro Baptist Church have tweeted, stating they will be at the funeral to carry out their usual protests. I dont want to live on this planet anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Ruger have you ever met CrossRoss? I think the two of you would get on very well!! Weapons of all kinds were designed to kill - defence or attack depends on your views about what it is being used for. Germany did not invent the gun - as with all weapons it was designed as a better way to kill or as a way around a new defence. No disputes with that, they were originally designed for killing people but not indiscriminately or for no reason. If you'd like to get back to it the original point, it was that we cannot be a civilized society to make and sell this stuff because of its design history. We are, we do, and we have been for a long time while we have done, and we can continue to be civilized while we do. Try telling London 2012 Olympic gold winner Peter Wilson that his MX2005 was somehow designed/engineered/developed by Perazzi for killing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 One point that needs to be made/remade is that a nutter will find the means to kill lots of people if that's what they want to do whether gun laws exists or not. The only thing guns do is make it easier. They can be legally bought where it is allowed and are very portable and can be used with little risk to the user (unlike explosives). However banning them will not change the mindset of the nutter. I don't think it is reasonable for the general public to have access to firearms and note that the IOM is the only place in the British Isles where this is now possible. However criminals will always be able to get them along with other weapons (eg the recent hand grenade attack in Manchester) no matter what the law. I realise that Belgium is only about the size of one US state but guns can be very easily bought there yet there is little reported gun crime. One would have to wonder why that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Its not the only place in the Brit.Isles at all BB. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church have tweeted, stating they will be at the funeral to carry out their usual protests. I dont want to live on this planet anymore. http://hypervocal.co...church-newtown/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Where else can you legally own a handgun in the British Isles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Where else can you legally own a handgun in the British Isles? Handguns make up one category of all 'firearms' (the term you used). But to answer, Jersey, Guernsey and NI. At least. And "you" generally cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Jersey, Guernsey and NI. At least. And "you" generally cannot Thank you but you are splitting hairs and are utilising an obstructive arguing technique and what's all this "you" stuff? I admit I'd forgotten about the Channel Islands but I'm very surprised that you can own a .44 magnum in, say, Belfast. Can you definitely confirm that is the case as NI is part of the UK? Whilst this particular atrocity was committed using a rifle, the vast majority of joe public see handguns as the biggest problem due to the ability to conceal and this was no doubt in the minds of the UK parliament when they stopped their legal ownership a few years ago. Of course you should always choose exactly the correct term with an expert as they will instantly correct you on definitions and semantics in an attempt to further their apparently weak argument*, but yes, you're right, I should have specified handgun in lieu of firearm. You suggest there may be more places in the British Isles by saying "at least", can you confirm one way or the other please? *Also, it would be helpful if you could adequately answer MDO's point made many times as to why the public should be able to legally own firearms, sorry, handguns. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Found the info now. It is estimated that there are about 380,000 legal guns in Northern Ireland (ref gunpolicy.org). I think most reasonable people would see that as a potentially significant problem. I wonder how many are handguns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Jersey, Guernsey and NI. At least. And "you" generally cannot Thank you but you are splitting hairs and are utilising an obstructive arguing technique and what's all this "you" stuff? I admit I'd forgotten about the Channel Islands but I'm very surprised that you can own a .44 magnum in, say, Belfast. Can you definitely confirm that is the case as NI is part of the UK? Whilst this particular atrocity was committed using a rifle, the vast majority of joe public see handguns as the biggest problem due to the ability to conceal and this was no doubt in the minds of the UK parliament when they stopped their legal ownership a few years ago. Of course you should always choose exactly the correct term with an expert as they will instantly correct you on definitions and semantics in an attempt to further their apparently weak argument, but yes, you're right, I should have specified handgun in lieu of firearm. You suggest there may be more places in the British Isles by saying "at least", can you confirm one way or the other please? Also, it would be helpful if you could adequately answer MDO's point made many times as to why the public should be able to legally own firearms, sorry, handguns. Thanks Try to keep your statements accurate and factual, or things get very confusing. I'm not being obstructive, I'm just trying to avoid misunderstandings. Yes I can confirm this if you really need be to but please look for yourself. Yes that is correct, even the UK government realizes the point in allowing the carrying of PPWs by civilians in violent, dangerous societies. I'm not saying they allow .44mags, that wouldn't be considered suitable I would imagine. When I say 'at least', I mean off the op of my head. But yes I think I can provide another example, the Falkland islands. They are British, maybe not Geographically, I don't know, but is that relevant?. They allow Pistol shooting. MDO' point. I do not and have not suggested the 2nd amendment has been healthy for America, but its not entirely to blame for the sad state of affairs that they are in. I guess we will never know what their rights have averted. A little like Alans point about the UK handgun Ban. Who can say where they would have been. The right exists not for hunting, sport, or any other purpose other than as a last line of defense against Tyranny. If you look at the Nazi disarmament of Jews shortly before the holocaust, I suppose you can see where the idea comes from. The problem with altering that right seems to be that if the Federal Government can take that right away from the Nation, what else can they take away?. But I'm not arguing about this, I don't support the idea, I see both sides, I want to see a way forward or we're just crying over spilt milk. GFZ's (localized private firearms carry/possession bans) have become the sights of the most horrific mass shootings in the last 20years. FACT. I'd hate to see that go nationwide. They really need to be careful over this, that's all I have to say really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Ruger have you ever met CrossRoss? I think the two of you would get on very well!! Weapons of all kinds were designed to kill - defence or attack depends on your views about what it is being used for. Germany did not invent the gun - as with all weapons it was designed as a better way to kill or as a way around a new defence. No disputes with that, they were originally designed for killing people but not indiscriminately or for no reason. If you'd like to get back to it the original point, it was that we cannot be a civilized society to make and sell this stuff because of its design history. We are, we do, and we have been for a long time while we have done, and we can continue to be civilized while we do. Try telling London 2012 Olympic gold winner Peter Wilson that his MX2005 was somehow designed/engineered/developed by Perazzi for killing people. I am no expert on types of weapon/gun but Peter Wilson MX2005 would have its history in a weapon designed to kill. I daresay that if placed in the wrong hands it could still kill - after all the MX2005 is hardly going to stop itself being fired at something it was not designed to be aimed at. As others have said criminals will find ways around gun control but by allowing private citizens to purchase and carry weapons you are only increasing the supply. Additionally a lot of the US killings seem to be someone, who for one reason or another, decided to go on a killing spree and it is made a lot easier by having a gun in the house. The crime statistics have recently shown that if you carry a knife in the UK you are much more likely to be injured (or killed) as a result. Are there any similar statistics available for countries which allow private citizens to carry guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 OK Ruger so your justification of jp being allowed to legally own a handgun is basically the last defence against tyranny? Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Suggestive question. I'm not justifying anybody, for anything. Now if you asked me, was the 2nd amendment partially to blame for jps easy access to a handgun, then yes, finding someone who could prove otherwise is very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.