Courts strike down Washington DC handgun ban...

[fall-apart]

What amazes me is how unwise many of you are

In your not-so-humble opinion...  just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid.  Unless you're willing to admit that you could be wrong, why should the people you debate be willing?

[VorLonUK]

What amazes me is how unwise many of you are

In your not-so-humble opinion...  just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid.  Unless you're willing to admit that you could be wrong, why should the people you debate be willing?

So where would you draw the line FA? How militaristic would the US have to become before you thought members on here who were supporting said stance unwise?

Btw, when I call certain people Unwise, I don't mean they are stupid or unintelligent, in fact far from it.

[rrussell]

[delurk]
FWIW, unwise != stupid.

But now I know what to think when FA calls me unwise... (heh)
[relurk]

[GTX]

This is why I was horrified (and when I mentioned it to other Brits too, they were totally shocked) when GTX mentioned the mothers/guardians etc carrying weapons in their vehicles when they picked their kids up from school. To me that is probably the worst form of indoctrination and no different to Palestinian children seeing their parents with guns etc. It's militaristic from the outset, it invokes a particular mindset and hence we have seen many posts on here recently regarding the way the world sees America. ?

The weapons are concealed. The same holds true for knives, hammers, or whatever other tools you're carrying. Kids aren't exposed to them, and most aren't aware of them.

As I've mentioned, I'm only representative of a very small group of people in a small section of the Adirondack Region of Upstate New York. Hardly representative of the average of over three hundred million people in the 50 states. Many people in the area own lakefront homes, or camps, boats, waverunners, snowmobiles, quads and campers, but they're hardly representative of the country as a whole.

Most kids in the area aren't really into guns. They're more interested in cars, trucks, boats, waverunners, snowmobiles, quads and other outdoor activities like camping, swimming, waterskiing, downhill skiing etc.

[VorLonUK]

This is why I was horrified (and when I mentioned it to other Brits too, they were totally shocked) when GTX mentioned the mothers/guardians etc carrying weapons in their vehicles when they picked their kids up from school. To me that is probably the worst form of indoctrination and no different to Palestinian children seeing their parents with guns etc. It's militaristic from the outset, it invokes a particular mindset and hence we have seen many posts on here recently regarding the way the world sees America. ?

The weapons are concealed. The same holds true for knives, hammers, or whatever other tools you're carrying. Kids aren't exposed to them, and most aren't aware of them.

As I've mentioned, I'm only representative of a very small group of people in a small section of the Adirondack Region of Upstate New York. Hardly representative of the average of over three hundred million people in the 50 states. Many people in the area own lakefront homes, or camps, boats, waverunners, snowmobiles, quads and campers, but they're hardly representative of the country as a whole.

Most kids in the area aren't really into guns. They're more interested in cars, trucks, boats, waverunners, snowmobiles, quads and other outdoor activities like camping, swimming, waterskiing, downhill skiing etc.

I understand what you are saying GTX and I've already acknowledged that there will be differences because of the way the US is made up ie smaller towns, rural areas etc.

As to the point you make:-

Kids aren't exposed to them, and most aren't aware of them.

I'm not sure as to how you can say that, or know how having them in close proximity to kids albeit passively affects them.

Moving this subject on though GTX Questions.....

There was something else I was thinking on about this whole gun subject and that as the US and the UK are very different on this score, how it would be if I debated from another angle.

Rocky posted part of the constitution on the right to bear arms. Well from what I gather and with this thread in particular, every state has a different interpretation on that - am I right?
It seems to me that there has to be a different take ironically on this "right" because the years have moved on and so has weaponary technology.

As such I'm guessing all Americans have differing views on what is acceptable because of this right.

What would have been the most high tech Firearm at the time of the constitution right to bear arms was delivered to the public?

What is stopping people from having any Firearm they want in the US now? Although your consitution was drawn up way back and you use it's sentiment (of way back then) to justify gun usage and ownership now, surely that justification you employ now should mean you can have whatever you want. If Not why not?

Now me moving to your level (tiered amongst members) should indicate as to where i'm coming from.

[bluebomberx]

VorLonUK, are your referring to what we are allowed to own and what we can't own? (i.e. explosives, bazookas, etc) If so, we're not allowed to own destructive devices, SBRs (short-barreled rifles), shotguns with barrels shorter than 18", and automatic weapons. There is a catch to this though. We can own such items with the right paper work. It is up to the chief law enforcement officer in our area. His signature is required on the paper work. The other catch is the ATF will crawl into every nook and crannie in your past and present. The weapons cannot travel beyond state borders without written permission from the ATF. Essentially, if you want to own such a weapon, the government knows exactly who it belongs to and where it is stored at all times. They cannot be sold to third parties without ATF approval and an authorized dealer. There are even restrictions on how it is to be secured in the home. If these requirements aren't met, the ATF won't let you own it. There is more to this, but in a nutshell that's how it works.

[VorLonUK]

VorLonUK, are your referring to what we are allowed to own and what we can't own? (i.e. explosives, bazookas, etc) If so, we're not allowed to own destructive devices, SBRs (short-barreled rifles), shotguns with barrels shorter than 18", and automatic weapons. There is a catch to this though. We can own such items with the right paper work. It is up to the chief law enforcement officer in our area. His signature is required on the paper work. The other catch is the ATF will crawl into every nook and crannie in your past and present. The weapons cannot travel beyond state borders without written permission from the ATF. Essentially, if you want to own such a weapon, the government knows exactly who it belongs to and where it is stored at all times. They cannot be sold to third parties without ATF approval and an authorized dealer. There are even restrictions on how it is to be secured in the home. If these requirements aren't met, the ATF won't let you own it. There is more to this, but in a nutshell that's how it works.

Yes BBX..  Do you see what I'm getting at? Now I've "travelled" to the US way of thinking tier there are restrictions.

Tell me, why are there restrictions? Is it to be inline with history, for instance the most high tech thing around the constitution delivery time is where a line is sort of drawn today. ie a musket for a pistol sort of thing?

So could you own pretty much anything (including battlefield nuclear weapons) with the right paperwork? If not why?

[Rocky]

Please Rocky, don't do a Tex on me.

Gun violence is going up in the UK and its going down in the US.  I dont know what that has to do with people being in prison or not.

That was a true example...

Point being our figures have a low baseline compared to the US even if they are going up. You can't make a comparison. It's like the prison thing, because you put away 8X the amount of people in the US to the UK per capita, any "increases" or "decreases" are on a completely different level.

Again, im not comparing people put in prison.  I dont know what that has to do with anything?   Yes the US is a lot bigger than the UK, any comparisons have to be considered inaccurate because of it.  

Try this, take the numbers alone.  The united kingdoms gun violence rate is increasing.  That in itself, alone, is a bad thing.  Ask your why that is.  THen ask yourself can you really make comments about american cave men, and how were lacking evolution and at the same time your own country's gun violence rate is increasing?  Irony, hello?

On a seperate argument, one can make that the US gun violence is decreasing, if you are claiming guns are a problem in the US, that would be argument against it.  Our gun violence rates are going down, we must be doing something right.

[VorLonUK]

Please Rocky, don't do a Tex on me.

Gun violence is going up in the UK and its going down in the US.  I dont know what that has to do with people being in prison or not.

That was a true example...

Point being our figures have a low baseline compared to the US even if they are going up. You can't make a comparison. It's like the prison thing, because you put away 8X the amount of people in the US to the UK per capita, any "increases" or "decreases" are on a completely different level.

Again, im not comparing people put in prison.  I dont know what that has to do with anything?   Yes the US is a lot bigger than the UK, any comparisons have to be considered inaccurate because of it.  

Try this, take the numbers alone.  The united kingdoms gun violence rate is increasing.  That in itself, alone, is a bad thing.  Ask your why that is.  THen ask yourself can you really make comments about american cave men, and how were lacking evolution and at the same time your own country's gun violence rate is increasing?  Irony, hello?

On a seperate argument, one can make that the US gun violence is decreasing, if you are claiming guns are a problem in the US, that would be argument against it.  Our gun violence rates are going down, we must be doing something right.

Hello, Earth to Rocky, anyone there?

Baseline - Chalk - Cheese.

Our gun violence rates are going down

Probably the gun fatalities are so high that they are reducing the population, that inturn makes there fewer people to commit the crimes with guns in the first place.

[bluebomberx]

VorLonUK, are law enforcement agencies in the UK duty bound to protect each individual in the country? In 1982 a ruling came down from an appellate court stating the police are not obligated to protect any individual. Here is a link discussing the matter.

[bluebomberx]

Probably the gun fatalities are so high that they are reducing the population, that inturn makes there fewer people to commit the crimes with guns in the first place.

I hope you don't seriously believe that. That is the most idiotic statement I've read today... and I've read a bunch for a caveman Why do you feel Rocky's comparison is chalk and cheese? There are no guns in the UK right? If gun violence is going up in a country without guns, what sense does that make? Gun violence is on the decline here despite having more privately owned firearms. Strange brew....

[VorLonUK]

VorLonUK, are law enforcement agencies in the UK duty bound to protect each individual in the country? In 1982 a ruling came down from an appellate court stating the police are not obligated to protect any individual. Here is a link discussing the matter.

I don't know to be honest, seeing as you put it that way. I suppose they would serve very little purpose if they didn't.

I don't get the US thing and that court ruling. For a country that puts so much into countless law enforcement agencies I really don't understand the mentality.
In fact I know the US loves it's acronyms. I saw the other day on the news, US police with "ICE" written on their jackets (under the word Police). I thought isn't that good and protective to run to the aid of those suffering with heat exhaustion.

[VorLonUK]

Probably the gun fatalities are so high that they are reducing the population, that inturn makes there fewer people to commit the crimes with guns in the first place.

I hope you don't seriously believe that. That is the most idiotic statement I've read today... and I've read a bunch for a caveman Why do you feel Rocky's comparison is chalk and cheese? There are no guns in the UK right? If gun violence is going up in a country without guns, what sense does that make? Gun violence is on the decline here despite having more privately owned firearms. Strange brew....

This is becoming tiresome, 1% of a shitload is more than 1% in comparison of almost nothing. An increase in an already low baseline is as chalk to cheese, to a small reduction in an already very high baseline.

Sorry BBX, but I give up, I have lost the will to type anything more.

[Virtuous1]

Probably the gun fatalities are so high that they are reducing the population, that inturn makes there fewer people to commit the crimes with guns in the first place.

I hope you don't seriously believe that. That is the most idiotic statement I've read today... and I've read a bunch for a caveman Why do you feel Rocky's comparison is chalk and cheese? There are no guns in the UK right? If gun violence is going up in a country without guns, what sense does that make? Gun violence is on the decline here despite having more privately owned firearms. Strange brew....

This is becoming tiresome, 1% of a shitload is more than 1% in comparison of almost nothing. An increase in an already low baseline is as chalk to cheese, to a small reduction in an already very high baseline.

Sorry BBX, but I give up, I have lost the will to type anything more.

Vorlon this is where your logic fails. You cannot compare raw numbers between our countries, you would have to see a 1% to 99% jump to see a raw number equality of us going 1% to 2%. You have to comare percentages! And 1% and .1% are not that far off, espicially when that difference is becoming less.

But whatever makes you feel better at night. I'm losing the will to type any responses myself.

[Rocky]

Probably the gun fatalities are so high that they are reducing the population, that inturn makes there fewer people to commit the crimes with guns in the first place.

I hope you don't seriously believe that. That is the most idiotic statement I've read today... and I've read a bunch for a caveman Why do you feel Rocky's comparison is chalk and cheese? There are no guns in the UK right? If gun violence is going up in a country without guns, what sense does that make? Gun violence is on the decline here despite having more privately owned firearms. Strange brew....

This is becoming tiresome, 1% of a shitload is more than 1% in comparison of almost nothing. An increase in an already low baseline is as chalk to cheese, to a small reduction in an already very high baseline.

Sorry BBX, but I give up, I have lost the will to type anything more.

Vorlon, please read this link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,,178412,00.html

,  and then apologize to the people in the articles for calling their lives cheese.

[Timster]

So could you own pretty much anything (including battlefield nuclear weapons) with the right paperwork? If not why?

The BATF has a definition of what is considered a firearm, and what is a destructive device.  If a device has many similar features of a firearm, but has a bore larger than 12.7mm, it's considered a destructive device.  This includes anti-tank rifles, cannons and artillery pieces, but excludes them from firing explosive projectiles.  They can be owned with the right paperwork, and are open to be inspected at any time by the BATF.  Grenades, bazookas and other rocket launchers cannot be leaglly owned in operable condition, or in a condition where they can be made operable by exchanging a few parts.  Even though these devices are owned by individuals and are available for sale or transfer to other qualified individuals, there has never been a crime committed with a registered machine gun, silenced firearm, or destructive device.

[Mefistofeles]

Probably the gun fatalities are so high that they are reducing the population, that inturn makes there fewer people to commit the crimes with guns in the first place.

I don't know if this is the case in the US but its certainly true for one man and his family in the UK.

The family of a young father gunned down on his doorstep after a seven-month campaign of intimidation last night accused police of betraying him.

Family's agony over hounded father shot dead at home

The story goes onto say:

The 22-year-old TV satellite engineer, was shot in the heart last August in front of his fiancee - 24-year-old classroom assistant Jane Bowden - and their three-year-old son Sam after a campaign of intimidation by a gang known as the Royal List Thugs.

Its not as though the police didn't know what was going on according to the article:

In January last year he had been slashed across the face in a confrontation with the same group of youths in Canning Town, East London.

Ominously :

No one was charged with the knifing - which left Mr Woodhams permanently scarred - and the yobs continued their harassment of the young father and his family.

A man is slashed in the face and what do the police do even after being supplied with ample information:

Miss Bowden said: "We were told he did it by eight people. The police said they were going to have a line-up, but they never did that. We gave them names and addresses and they never did anything. We had no help at all from the police from the beginning. I felt very let down.'

A few months later:

Three bullets hit Mr Woodhams, entering both lungs and his heart. He was taken to hospital but died an hour later. Tucker ran off but was tracked down a month later. He admitted firing the shots but said he thought the weapon fired blanks.

The British justice system failed this man its hard to see how not having a firearm did any good in the face of reckless indiference on the part of the police.