Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • April 22, 2018, 12:59:37 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Gun Control Debate  (Read 12057 times)

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2009, 02:46:03 PM »

As the diagram clearly shows, the countries with least gun control ahve the highest death rates.  Thanks for that.



Oh wait, a nugget.  Troll will claim it.  Needs no proof.  Proves that he's right an your wrong.

Support from him, no.  Just more questions to ask you to put up opinion so that he can act as a devil's advocate.   Oh wait, in a corner...no, his opinion is your opinion.  He was just playing devil's advocate.

Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2009, 12:32:21 AM »

Some stats...

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
 Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
                            Homicide   Suicide   Other (inc Accident)
            
USA (2001)            3.98       5.92       0.36
Italy (1997)        0.81       1.1       0.07
Switzerland (1998)   0.50       5.8       0.10
Canada (2002)      0.4      2.0       0.04
Finland (2003)      0.35      4.45      0.10
Australia (2001)    0.24       1.34       0.10
France (2001)      0.21      3.4       0.49
England/Wales (2002)   0.15      0.2       0.03
Scotland (2002)    0.06       0.2      0.02
Japan (2002)       0.02      0.04      0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International.  Westport.







I tried to format the table above but the forum truncates it, check the link
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm


Countries with least gun control have highest homicides??  Mexico has strict gun laws, so do other central american countries.  What this graph looks like to me is the first 14 countries are second or third world economies with extreme and radical groups have serious crime issues, which far surpass any analysis of "gun control vs homicides".  You can clearly see the pattern of poor countries and homicides in this graph. 

What is also critical is the number of homicides in every country is shadowed by suicides, almost double the count!

The question stands, does gun control work?  In UK is the overall homicide rate (edged weapons, blunt weapons...the whole count) significantly lower with gun ban?  How much lower?  I would love to see these stats but the UK gvt are very reluctant to release them?
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2009, 12:47:04 AM »

Then, the second question...what happens without gun control?  Does crime go up?  How much does the rise in crime cost with gun bans?

We know that in the US, 2.5 million crimes are interrupted or prevented using firearms every year in America.  We know that the savings is 5 times that of the cost of crime committed with firearms.

We also know that handguns are responsible for more than 95% of homicides, but gun bans are aimed directly at assault weapons (ie rifles with pistol grips, folding stocks, extra cap mags, bayonets, etc).  The AWB did nothing to prevent overall gun homicide rate.

If guns are the problem, and banning guns will stop violent crime, then why in the US are 4,000 out of 14,000 homicides per year committed with other weapons or means?  So then back to the "if it saves one life its worth it" argument.  What about the 4,000 dead due to knives, blunt objects, etc.  Do we also ban all knives, all blunt objects?  What about repeat offenders?

Finally, if the pure objective of saving lives was the overall goal of our government here in the US, then the laws would not have become so lenient.  We'd still be "hanging em high"!  We'd make it really really hard to get out of the pen!  But with the laws are now, the bad guys are given a free ride, even rehabilitate them, get them set up with a job, a place to go when they get out....it's a god dang three ring circus!

Where do we draw the line?  The line is drawn "correctly" right where it should be in America, that is let the citizens defend themselves, its worth it.  It saves lives, prevents crime, and also saves a ton of money.  The greater good is best served with our system staying the way it is, stats clearly show this...
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2009, 06:09:47 AM »

How people twist and turn.

Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2009, 10:23:25 AM »

Here is a great website to look at nation by nation crime statistics. 
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

Conclusions:
1-The number of guns owned by citizens in a country per capita does not dictate the violent crime rate.
2-Gun bans do not significantly reduce or eliminate violent crime.
3-Poverty and violent crime go hand in hand.
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2009, 10:36:27 AM »

A perfect example in the US regarding gun control and homicides...
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Washington&state=DC

D.C. has had a handgun ban, thus gun control. Yet it's homicide rate is 5 times the national average, placing DC at #2 just below New Orleans.  Yes, the capital of the US, which has the most stringent gun laws is the second most violent city in the US!

And, the US supreme court recently ruled the gun ban unconstitutional.  Now citizens can legally own handguns once again. 
Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2009, 11:19:00 AM »

OK, Brian S, here are the stats that you failed to provide (it'll cost you 15minutes of my time...).

This I got from the UK Crime Statistics report.  Total Homicides by year.  Now if the objective of gun control is to save lives, it is failing miserably in the UK.  Refer to p 16 of the report.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf

Table 1.01 Offences1 initially recorded by the police as homicide by current classification2:
England and Wales, 1955 to 2007/08
Year
Number of offences
initially recorded as
homicide
Number of offences
no longer recorded
as homicide
Number of offences
currently recorded as
homicide
Offences currently
recorded as homicide
per million population

Date      Reported homicides  No longer recorded   Recorded   Recorded per million pop
1955      279                       ..                         ..              ..
1956      315                       ..                         ..              ..
1957      321                       ..                         ..              ..
1958      261                       ..                         ..              ..
1959      266 .. .. ..
1960      282 .. .. ..
1961      265 .. .. ..
1962      299 .. .. ..
1963      307 .. .. ..
1964      296 .. .. ..
1965     325 .. .. ..
1966     364 .. .. ..
1967     414                       60                          354          7.3
1968     420                       60                          360          7.4
1969     395                       63                          332          6.8
1970     396                       57                          339          7.0
1971     459                       52                          407          8.3
1972     480                       71                          409          8.3
1973     465                       74                          391          8.0
1974     599                       73                          526          10.7
1975     508                       65                          443          9.0
1976     565                       77                          488          9.9
1977     484                       66                          418          8.5
1978     535                       64                          471          9.6
1979     629                       83                          546          11.1
1980     621                       72                          549          11.1
1981     556                       57                          499          10.1
1982     618                       61                          557          11.2
1983     552                       70                          482           9.7
1984     619                       82                          537           10.8
1985     625                       89                          536           10.7
1986     660                       97                          563           11.2
1987     686                       87                          599           11.9
1988     645                       98                          547           10.9
1989     622                      101                         521           10.3
1990     661                      106                         555            10.9
1991     725                      102                         623            12.3
1992     681                      100                         581            11.4
1993     673                       108                        565            11.1
1994     727                       95                          632            12.4
1995     752                       90                          662            13.0
1996     678                       92                          586            11.4
1997     734                       125                        609             11.8
1997/98 729                      120                         609             11.8
1998/99 745                      99                           646             12.5
1999/00 763                      88                           675             13.0
2000/01 852                      79                           773             14.9
2001/02 867                      59                           808             15.4
2002/03 1051                    98                           953              18.1
2003/04 855                      79                           776              14.7
2004/05 839                      55                           784              14.8
2005/06 768                      45                           723              13.5
2006/07 758                      16                           742              13.8
2007/08 773                      10                           763              14.1


Look at the years from 1995 to 2008.  Gun control may have removed firearms from citizens, but the overall homicide rate actually increased from 11 to average 15 per million UK citizens. And there was a peak in homicides during 2002/03.

The UK media/gvt claims gun control is working, well that is not the case with regards to overall homicide count.  Any explanations for this raw data from the UK Home Office?

Did gun control reduce homicides as it claimed it was so successful in doing?  No.  Homicide rate actually increased significantly.  Again, I have yet to see supporting data from the gun control advocates on this forum.  Show me...

Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2009, 01:50:39 AM »

I find it interesting that most (all in my experience) advocates of gun control not only don't have any real argument but that they stick to the belief that it works, even when presented with statistics like the ones above. I wonder if it stems from some type of fear. Maybe the fear of accepting the realities of violence, and the responsibility that comes with being a gun owner and protector? 
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2009, 07:15:34 AM »

But you're assuming that people used guns to defend themselves prior to the 1995 restrictions.  They did not.

There are countless sociological reasons that murders have increeased of course.  And the restrictions have stopped the kind of massacre recently seen in Germany, and regularly seen in the USA.

Imagine more pedestrians got killed AFTER seat belt laws were introduced?  That doesn't mean that seat belts don't work of course..... as pedestirans have nothing to do with seat belts - just like people getting murdered had nothing to do with using guns as self defence.
Logged

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2009, 10:25:05 AM »

The following quotes have been corrected for spelling. This is not meant to misrepresent the author.
But you're assuming that people used guns to defend themselves prior to the 1995 restrictions.  They did not.

Sounds interesting and suspiciously like fiction. Are you aware of any statistics or research papers that we could refer to?

There are countless sociological reasons that murders have increased of course.  And the restrictions have stopped the kind of massacre recently seen in Germany, and regularly seen in the USA.

Sociological reason? That starts out so well but then you don't back it up at all. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Could you provide us with idea as to what these sociological reasons are?

Imagine more pedestrians got killed AFTER seat belt laws were introduced?  That doesn't mean that seat belts don't work of course..... as pedestrians have nothing to do with seat belts - just like people getting murdered had nothing to do with using guns as self defense.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the analogy that you are trying to make. Gun control is supposedly for preventing the death of the person the gun is pointed at. Seat belts are meant to protect the people in the car. I'm just not able to understand the correlation of pedestrians to some part of gun control working on not.

Brian S,
Are you able to support your side with any statistics, research papers, or even a well thought out response. I thought that we might be able to have a debate but I haven't seen any debate from your side. You are totally and completely unable to even put together a decent argument. Personally I relish a good debate but you have been a huge waste of time. Everyone of your posts have been pure conjecture.
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2009, 12:13:54 PM »

Alright, I'm gonna lay off ol Brian S for now.  I think I've made my point.  See Bri, we yanks aren't the assholes the media makes us out to be.

So, to switch gears a little, I will try to answer a comment Hock made early on in this thread about the homicide percentages of UK and US.

Overall Homicide percentages (includes any weapon)
US = 14,000 per 330,000,000 = 0.004% of pop are homicide victims
UK = 750 per 62,000,000 = 0.001% of pop are homicide victims

Homicide weapons of choice
US = 71% homicides by gun
UK = 8% homicides by gun, 37% homicides by knife-edge objects

Conclusions on homicide stats for UK and US...

1-a "mere sliver" of both populations are homicide victims, and numbers are not statistically different (difference being three one-thousandth of a percent).

2-weapons of choice generally correlate with corresponding laws of both countries.

3-no matter the laws, weapons of choice will always include guns, ie 8% homicides in UK persists even with gun bans.

4-Gun bans are not shown to directly reduce homicide rates, as felons will use other means to commit murder.

So, hope this helps to dispell some of the myths of "gun control".  There could be some other stats on crime rates to look into in the UK, but I will leave that for the other side to report.  On a final note, I'd just like to say that the "fear of guns" is so ingrained in us thru media, hollywood, and our elected officials, that it makes it very difficult for us citizens to do this kind of research for ourselves.  All the good that firearms do for us here in America, all the prevented crimes, saved lives, etc just go unreported because the media makes more money on your fear.  Yes, fear is a profiteers paradise.  If you compare any of the other ways you might die in the US, I think you might fear MacDonalds and Burger King, your car, the anger your spouse brings you much much more than a gun.  And if those stats on suicide are correct, you should fear the man in the mirror twice as much than the gun-totting felon!

The world at large, Europeans in general, tune into our news and just can't get why we Americans clutch our guns even in the wake of rare mass shootings.  That can be said for the Chinese and their embracing communism, or UK embracing a monarchy and queen.  Unfathomable from American perspective!  So, to each his own I guess.


Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2009, 11:48:03 AM »

The following quotes have been corrected for spelling. This is not meant to misrepresent the author.
But you're assuming that people used guns to defend themselves prior to the 1995 restrictions.  They did not.

Sounds interesting and suspiciously like fiction. Are you aware of any statistics or research papers that we could refer to?

There are countless sociological reasons that murders have increased of course.  And the restrictions have stopped the kind of massacre recently seen in Germany, and regularly seen in the USA.

Sociological reason? That starts out so well but then you don't back it up at all. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Could you provide us with idea as to what these sociological reasons are?

Imagine more pedestrians got killed AFTER seat belt laws were introduced?  That doesn't mean that seat belts don't work of course..... as pedestrians have nothing to do with seat belts - just like people getting murdered had nothing to do with using guns as self defense.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the analogy that you are trying to make. Gun control is supposedly for preventing the death of the person the gun is pointed at. Seat belts are meant to protect the people in the car. I'm just not able to understand the correlation of pedestrians to some part of gun control working on not.

Brian S,
Are you able to support your side with any statistics, research papers, or even a well thought out response. I thought that we might be able to have a debate but I haven't seen any debate from your side. You are totally and completely unable to even put together a decent argument. Personally I relish a good debate but you have been a huge waste of time. Everyone of your posts have been pure conjecture.

Having been a resident of the UK since 1964, and a police officer in the UK since 1986 I really don't think I need statistics to back up any claim that firearms were not routinely used for self protection in the UK prior to the 1995 law change.  The whole idea is so ridiculous that no one would compile such stats in any case.  How about you show me stats that people didn't use lollipops fo self defence?  Doh!  Haw haw haw!

Do we need to back up "claims" that the sociological reasons behind all the types of murders in the UK, or any country, are many and varied?  Do you really think that the motives for all murders in any country whatsoever are down to whether or not that country has gun control?  Doh!

As for the analogy - it is an analogy.  Doh!

You say you want a debate.  I say you want raw statistics - but only those that suit you.... or, even more ridiculous, those that you will twist no matter what they say.  I aprticularly enjoyed those on the causes of death because, of course, EVERYBODY DIES OF SOMETHING!  So having 1/2 of a percent die from guns is incredibly significant.  And over 2/3's of "homicides" being gun related is amazingly high.

To clarify.  Guns were NOT routinely used for self defence in the UK prior to 1995.  Ask any Brit.  Ask any American that has lived in Britain.  Ask anyone of any country that lived in Britain prior to 1995. 

To clarify. Murder is a complex issue.  There are all kinds of reasons that people commit murder, and they are many and varied.  They are not all committed merely because a country has gun control.....  In fact I do not know of any case whatsoever of a murder where the motive was clarified as a lack of gun control.

To clarify.  An analogy is an analogy.  Like a sausage is a sausage.  There, another analogy!  OK, an analogy doesn't have sausage meat in it....... I'll give you that.  But?  Well, anyone with a brain gets the picture.

Arguments like your do more to justify gun control than any massacre - you're too stupid to be given a fork, let alone a gun!  Haw haw haw!
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 11:52:12 AM by Brian S »
Logged

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2009, 02:52:36 AM »

Opinions are... well everyone has one. Of course I want raw statistics. Without them our opinions don't really mean anything. Being a police officer since 1986 is a wonderful contribution and I am sure that you have benefited your community in many ways. But that alone as proof that what you say is correct really doesn't make for much of a debate. However I do think that your comment about my stupidity and how dangerous I am with a fork (I am definitely dumb enough to do a lot of damage with a fork) has sewn up a win for your side of the debate. So until you post some raw statistics I will respectfully bow out and admit that you have won on something. 
Logged

shastana

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2009, 08:47:46 PM »

Well, this is too hilarious! :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7508404.stm

Banning all pointed knives, including kitchen knives.  What standard of common sense are they adhering to with this plan?  Can't you still slash and hack with a round edge knife? Sounds like they should get ready to turn in their kitchen knives, hello plastic sporks.  :D

Just one parting thought...hoplophobia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
The psychology behind all this ranting fear of weapons should be addressed first and foremost, before everyone completely loses track of reality.  The signs of a welcomed government is inversely proportional to the number of absurd laws they enforce.

Epicthought, you gotta understand that Brian S. is an unarmed cop in the UK. If you were the 5-0 and just had a stick, you'd be hoplophobic too!   The whole point of weapons bans is to prevent both homicides and armed violent crimes.  The body count stats are all on the table and noone can argue with the stats.  Lastly, as Americans we have the rebel-gene, very few countries can relate to that.  We will never see eye to eye with super cop, so take it at face value.  Me, I'm on your side completely!  Overall a good opp to discuss the facts of gun control. Thanks again.

Shastana out.

Logged
An armed citizenry fly their colors, an unarmed citizenry wear their colors.

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2009, 08:01:12 AM »

Opinions are... well everyone has one. Of course I want raw statistics. Without them our opinions don't really mean anything. Being a police officer since 1986 is a wonderful contribution and I am sure that you have benefited your community in many ways. But that alone as proof that what you say is correct really doesn't make for much of a debate. However I do think that your comment about my stupidity and how dangerous I am with a fork (I am definitely dumb enough to do a lot of damage with a fork) has sewn up a win for your side of the debate. So until you post some raw statistics I will respectfully bow out and admit that you have won on something. 

But you also have to be logical.  You seem to be admitting that you have assumed that people in the UK were defending themselves with their guns prior to the 1995 legislation.  So it is down to you to provide the statistics that they were. 

Like I said, I cannot provide statistics that they weren't, as who would compile statistics about something that was not happening?  We're back to lollipops.... you show me stats on people NOT using lollipops to defend themselves?  There aren't any... because it just didn't happen.

We're back to the green tea pot floating around the Earth - again.  You don't realise that logic demands that the onus of proof for a positive assertion is on the person who makes it.  If I say that there is a green tea pot in orbit around the Earth I do not prove that it is true because you cannot prove that it is not.  Get it?

I lived here at that time.... as well as many years before and after.  So I do know that people did not defend themselves with guns here.  People just did not carry firearms around prior to the 1995 law.  It was not lawful to do so, beyond farmers with shotguns on their own land etc.  The weapons were stored in secure cabinets or, mostly, in secure cabinets in secure gun clubs and only used on private land. 

You're so sure that you must be right that you are making things up.

Nice little dig re spelling though...... Shame you're now trying to claim the moral high ground.  Is it because you have no argument?  Or is that just a coincidence?
Logged

Wild Bill

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2009, 07:43:56 PM »

These gun control debates always contain the same information.  It always comes down to arguments about the meaning of the 2nd amendment and various statistics to support one side or the other involving violent crime.  As Hock said, sooner or later some hippie faggot chimes in with the old ďDo it for the childrenĒ mantra although I doubt we will see many of those on this forum.  I would like to offer a another opinion.

I donít give a damn about what the Constitution of the United States says.  The Constitution doesnít grant me the right to bear arms.  The Constitution defines for the government my rights as a free man which are inalienable.  I was born with my rights.  I am a free man.  I have a right to keep and own inanimate objects whether it be a gun or a sack of potatoes.  It is unethical  to take those objects away from me without just cause.  As long as I  personally donít massacre other citizens with my sack of potatoes I should be left alone to do what I damn well please. I am a citizen not a subject.  I donít care about the statistics.  I am not concerned with the irrational fears of weak minded commie bitches.  My rights as a free man are more important than the feelings of the granola crunching sheep that would happily march to the reeducation camps singing koom by ya and chanting yes we can.

I would also like to address the idea that we patriotic types want the whole world to be like us.  I donít want everyone to be exactly like the U.S. but I would like to see my British  brothers stand up and demand the rights that they were born with.  Anyone in the formerly great Britain who wants to own a gun or sack of potatoes should be aloud to have one.  It is not simply a matter of guns for me.  It is a matter of freedom. There is no debate for me.  I will not be convinced that I should give up my freedom in any way shape or form.
Logged
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
                 - Ayn Rand

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2009, 10:09:13 PM »

Wild Bill, well said thank you!

Brian S, I disagree with you but I have learned that this is a topic I shouldn't argue with you. I am as far from being qualified to understand your explanations of your views as you are from being in this debate.  Ne supra crepidam sutor iudicaret.
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2009, 07:07:57 AM »

Bri Thai can only play devil's advocate.   It's a safe role where you can't be proven wrong.   You simply switch sides of the argument.


A troll or devil's advocated - same, same but different.

Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2009, 09:08:55 AM »

I'm not the one who bows out within a pretence of claiming the moral high ground when the going gets tough.

Alaskans and Claifornians. 
Logged

Professor

  • In your house drinking your coffee
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • The Warlord
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #49 on: March 25, 2009, 06:49:38 AM »

Post a YOUR stance on gun control troll boy.   


            . . . . Been asked for 2 years.


You simply want to argue.
Logged
  'Advanced' is being able to do the basics, despite what else is happening. 

Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"  --- Chesty Puller, USMC

whitewolf

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2009, 07:55:33 AM »

Good morning Professor-I will not respond to the "B" .
Ill just say i agree with you
Plus my son lives in Alaska- Is a member of the NRA-carries a weapon
My daughter in Law guards the alaska pipe line and carries a weapon.....
enough said.........except to say if we lose the right to carry arms then the bad guys will be in charge and the good guys will be at their mercy..

stay safe- Whitewolf (ELB)


Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2009, 01:40:29 PM »

Same old lies.  Same old wilfull blindness.
Logged

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2009, 05:30:13 PM »

brian it seems that everyone is trying avoid feeding your odd responses. Maybe it is because they never make sense. But personally I find it very humorous. So, lets just see if we can stir up just a little more humor from you. I wonder if anyone would be willing to make a bet on how long you can post without saying anything. I hope that everyone from the Land of the Free and Brave that shares your beliefs will also share your particular style of debate. If so we will be forever safe from freedom impeding gun laws. You have become my online proof of what the gun control crowd is made of. Thank you.
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2009, 10:49:33 AM »

I may not be saying anything to you, but that is because you are a person who "knows" he is right.

Let's get back to your request for statistics..... like I have to somehow provide statistical proof that people in the UK didn't lawfully carry firearms around and use them for self defence purposes prior to 1995.

They just didn't!  No one compiled statistics.... because it didn't happen.  Just like no one has compiled statistics on hoiw many people eat the moon for the lunch!

But you avoided the issue.... and convinced yourself that it is I who avoid it.

Now I know you want to now say "See!  Another post where he hasn't said anything!"  But it isn't true.  You have a total lack of knowledge of my country, and now seek to hide this fact from yourself.

Let's ask Uncle Nicky.  OK, we disagree on this issue re firearms and what we should/shouldn't be able to do in the UK.... But he has lived here after all.  Ask him if the general public were allowed to arm themselves in public places with firearms and use them for self defence in the UK prior to 1995.
Logged

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2009, 03:07:29 PM »

Lol, I love it.

Lets sum up your last post and make a few points:

1. You state that I know I'm right.
 
2. I requested statistics on anything related to your views and you stated that there are no statistics for one of your statements. Bloody hell mate I've seen guys drink more pints than I could count back up British gun law better than you have.

3. I avoided the issue.... well I was waiting for something to debate. You just throw out what you think with out any statistics or even a solid theory. I know that Britain is a small but wonderful country but I find it hard to believe that you being a citizen qualifies you to explain everything that did or didn't happen during any period related to guns.

4. You assume that I have no first hand knowledge of your country.  :-*

5. Instead of finding some stats to post you think we should ask Uncle Nicky if it was legal to be armed in public before 1995..... (hint its been illegal to carry anything since 1953. The law stated that you couldn't carry anything to defend yourself and that any article could be used in a defensive manner)

Here is a time line of interesting events in Britain as related to gun control.

1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown. (AKA the British Bill of Rights) states: Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defense, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

1904
Four armed robberies in the worlds larges city (London)

1920
Firearms act regulates private ownership and requires "certificate"
"A person shall not purchase, have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a certificate "

1953
The Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse"

1969
The Home Office stated "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person". But this new guideline was classified until 1989, so the public had no say and where unable to debate it.

1994
English homeowner arrested after detaining (two buglers who broke into his home) with a toy gun while waiting for police to arrive. He was arrested because he used the toy gun to threaten and intimidate.
 
1998
Complete ban of handguns.
British Crime Survey found four times as many crimes occurred as police records indicated.

1999
Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgun on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. Mr. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. The wounded burglar is already released from prison.

2002
A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league.

Brian S
It really seemed like you were close to posting something. Don't be shy, just go ahead a post your theories behind gun control. At this point I realize that you won't post any stats to backup you side but I would be more than willing to hear a well thought out theory or even just some random thoughts as to why all of the statistics say gun control doesn't work.

Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2009, 05:42:06 PM »

2009 - ET agrees with a post that gun control removed the rights of UK citizens to arm themselves with guns and then demands stats to prove a negative, contrary to the laws of logic and reason.
Logged

EpicThought

  • Level 2
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2009, 06:29:32 PM »

Brian if you make me laugh any harder I'm going spill tea all over. Once again you have made a small statement that makes no sense and certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything. A waste of valuable time. But if there is one thing Americans love to do it is waste time. So I'm going to tap the glass a little more.

I'm half tempted to write some of the common reasons and theories that I have heard from proponents of gun control but if you have chosen your side out of ignorance I'll be damned if I'm going to even try to fix that. Instead I'm just going to point out that there are at least three cases from 1994 where people defended themselves with defensive weapons and where then sent to prison for it.

Brian good luck out there. I'm really am glad that you hang out on this forum. It gives us all a little but of entertainment and hopefully others that read your... um responses will learn something from the whole deal.

Everyone else thanks for posting all the stats. I learned some interesting details that I really had no idea of before. One of the biggest things that I took from this however is that Americans truly do have an indomitable rebel spirit. We have a common bond. We are one of the few countries that has ever had a taste of real freedom. I look at the situations and mindsets of the countries that I have been to and I see a large underlying difference that I see as sad. Are we Americans arrogant in thinking that we have rights that we are born with? If people aren't born with the freedoms that we believe they are then what is the point of of life, religion, politics. Wouldn't it all be for naught?   
Logged

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2009, 12:12:46 PM »

Brian good luck out there. I'm really am glad that you hang out on this forum. It gives us all a little but of entertainment and hopefully others that read your... um responses will learn something from the whole deal.

No.  A poor attempt at muddying the waters.

The conversation, in this very thread, was about how things have gone bad for those in the UK since 1995, when the laws were changed and supposedly stopped the right to carry firearms for self defence.  This right is one that was not effected by this legislation, as we didn't have it in 1994. Nor 1993.  Nor 1992 etc.

To now twist things and speak of people illegally using weapons in so called self defence is a total misrepresentation of the issue raised in this very thread.

You're either delusional, dishonest or dysfunctional. 
Logged

arnold

  • the king of cool
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 3189
  • oh that will get you killed
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2009, 05:20:15 AM »

Take heed fellow bus riders. Our man Bri knows dysfunctional and delusional.
Logged
I leave you idiots alone for 5 minutes and I come back and you're all dancing around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots
you're all a bunch of slack jawed faggots around here, this stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me!

Brian S

  • Guest
Re: Gun Control Debate
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2009, 03:32:48 PM »

.......... when he sees it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
 

Download