SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Right, I would really like the anti-gun folks to answer this simple question:

You accept the fact that the majority of law abiding gun owners are not criminals nor do any harm to anybody with their guns, yet there is a small percentage of them who in most case don't turn out to be suitable for gun ownership due to medical/psychological conditions and kill others, so to you the best solution is to ban guns or regulate them even more strictly in order to avoid bad things would happen again, is that right?

Illogical question. Law abiding gun owners are by definition not criminals. If you mean lawful gun owners then the answer is "no". The answer does not however mean that gun law should be relaxed.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

According to your theory then what shall we do about Muslims? Yes, the majority are cool, but a small percentage of them, even in our own countries, have turned out to be terrorists or linked to them. Shall we follow the same logic just because a small minority is criminal? Shall we ban Islam and Muslims from our countries?

I don't wanna get in a religious debate here, all Im trying to say is that your gun banning theory is one step further towards a regime, maybe one with no guns,but surely not a safer nor a more free one. Don't you really think that your diversity and/or lack of interest/knowledge on the matter,fuelled by the government fear mongers, is just not enough of a valid reason to instate a ban that in reality won't solve problems?

It's like saying "hey, we don't like gingers because **paste here any ridiculous reason made up specifically** let's get rid of 'em!", still sounds like that place in Europe in the early 30s..

I must confess I don't follow that guns equate to Muslims, it's a bit random. Pick any race, cultural or religious group and the same question can be asked. The answer will be the same - do nothing because a few bad apples doesn't spoil the crop.


And you display arrogance, assuming that people who do not like guns do not know what they are talking about. You could as easily say that those that do not like guns are more enlightened, educated and better able to make rational decisions. Suggesting that having gun law will lead to regime change is quite a leap of faith and one I don't share.

As with all gun discussion it comes down to cultural differences. If certain countries want relatively easy access to guns then fine, have them. My personal (informed) opinion is that guns are cool and nasty at the same time but the arguments for having them are circular and feed off each other, or they have no grip on reality.

But what do I know, I'm a sheep with no intention of bettering myself living in a weak-willed country that is slowly going to hell because we as individual sheep aren't allowed guns - this is a relatively poor attempt at cynical humour.

gunpolicy.org and nationmaster.com gave me 5 minutes of interesting reading, comparing the stats for the countries that the main protagonists on these boards live in.

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Illogical question. Law abiding gun owners are by definition not criminals. If you mean lawful gun owners then the answer is "no". The answer does not however mean that gun law should be relaxed.

Let's not turn it into a battle of semantics, you know what I meant.

I must confess I don't follow that guns equate to Muslims, it's a bit random. Pick any race, cultural or religious group and the same question can be asked. The answer will be the same - do nothing because a few bad apples doesn't spoil the crop.

Muslims were only an exmaple, pick any other group who has "a few bad apples" and see if you can apply the same logic that the anti-gun fans here would apply.. You'll see that NONE of them will answer my question.

And you display arrogance, assuming that people who do not like guns do not know what they are talking about. You could as easily say that those that do not like guns are more enlightened, educated and better able to make rational decisions. Suggesting that having gun law will lead to regime change is quite a leap of faith and one I don't share.

No, you probably didn't read the previous posts. All of them admitted they don't have experience, and some even say they like guns but they don't want them (?!?!).
And I don't think that owning guns will lead to any regime change, there's no hope for that in our society, it's a matter of leaving me the right and the choice to defend my property and my loved ones in case it's necessary. Depriving a man of these fundamental, instinctive, rights is not fair nor human. The problem is that a lot of people here do not like to take on responsibilities (because owning a gun is first of all a responsibility), they're so weak and selfish that they would never think about giving their families adequate protections, and delegate this responsibility to the institutions.. They live with their head buried in the sand and hope they're not gonna be the ones in the news, but if violence strikes you then what are you gonna say to yourself, that you did all the best you could to defend your rights?
There's a lot of male individuals, but less and less Men...

As with all gun discussion it comes down to cultural differences. If certain countries want relatively easy access to guns then fine, have them. My personal (informed) opinion is that guns are cool and nasty at the same time but the arguments for having them are circular and feed off each other, or they have no grip on reality.

Define "cool and nasty".

But what do I know, I'm a sheep with no intention of bettering myself living in a weak-willed country that is slowly going to hell because we as individual sheep aren't allowed guns - this is a relatively poor attempt at cynical humour.

It's kinda worrying that you see that as cynical humour, it's reality.
If the police forces in the Cumbria shooting were armed, that crazy man wouldn't have carried on killing all that people, because what they told on the news once and once only is the police was following him during his shooting rampage but couldn't intervene cos they weren't armed.
Now go and explain that to the families of the victims, I'm sure they'll be very impressed with that..

[F19_Klunk]

shouldn't-- but.. can't .. resist .. gah...

"Sweden took silver in double trap"

AAAH I said it.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

shouldn't-- but.. can't .. resist .. gah...

"Sweden took silver in double trap"

AAAH I said it.

Congratulations Sweden! And look who won Gold....

@ Stern

Semantics are important otherwise a question becomes loaded.

Your example of Muslims was a bad one. You cannot equate guns with religious beliefs as they are very different things. And my answer stands - a few bad apples do not spoil the whole crop. At a stretch you could equate them with drugs/alcohol.

You are entitled to defend yourself, family and belongings, just not with a gun (in the UK anyway). If you do use a gun then provided you're licensed etc you may well be acquitted unless you shoot whoever it is in the back.

You equate a distaste for guns with being weak, selfish and showing a lack of responsibility? I equate it to being rational, intelligent and culturally advanced. Owning a gun doesn't make you more of a man - what a ridiculous belief. I think they are used to cover inadequacies down below.

Cool and nasty are subjective opinions. Cool is attractiveness because of form and function. For me guns satisfy both criteria. They're nasty because of what they were designed to do - kill things. This is regardless of target shooting etc, they still kill humans and animals. There is no contradiction here, it's like big furry spiders - they're cool but I really don't like them.

Re Cumbria, imagine you live in a country that has lax gun ownership and arms their police. If you really want to kill people, does the fact that the police are armed stop you? Do some research in the USA.

Hood

ps For the record I think the USA is an amazing place with amazing people. It is a country that takes every facet of humanity and takes it to the nth degree. I'll still argue that the right to bear arms is outdated and no longer of relevance, but the USA is stuck with it forever because of how the country has developed. C'est la vie.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Congratulations Sweden! And look who won Gold....

@ Stern

Semantics are important otherwise a question becomes loaded.

Your example of Muslims was a bad one. You cannot equate guns with religious beliefs as they are very different things. And my answer stands - a few bad apples do not spoil the whole crop. At a stretch you could equate them with drugs/alcohol.

The comparison stands on a level of a group of people that is identified by a specific feature (religion, gender, hobby...) and the reaction of people. You're ready to prohibit the use of guns to gun enthusiasts but not prohibit the following or the presence of a certain religious group whose a minority of members committed violent crimes all over the world? To me that's a double standard. And mind you, I'm not for the persecution, I'm for the integration and respect of different religions/hobbies, just don't like when someone comes at me and tells me what I can or cannot do without one valid reason, it's not hard is it?

You are entitled to defend yourself, family and belongings, just not with a gun (in the UK anyway). If you do use a gun then provided you're licensed etc you may well be acquitted unless you shoot whoever it is in the back.

good enough for me, still there are people here who shudder at the idea, yet support our troops using their guns in other countries... double standards again?

You equate a distaste for guns with being weak, selfish and showing a lack of responsibility? I equate it to being rational, intelligent and culturally advanced. Owning a gun doesn't make you more of a man - what a ridiculous belief. I think they are used to cover inadequacies down below.

that is SO hypocritical!! You feel rational, intelligent and culturally advanced, yet you're cool to send our military forces abroad to kill people for their own sake? Nice! Some of you lot are really a laugh...

Cool and nasty are subjective opinions. Cool is attractiveness because of form and function. For me guns satisfy both criteria. They're nasty because of what they were designed to do - kill things. This is regardless of target shooting etc, they still kill humans and animals. There is no contradiction here, it's like big furry spiders - they're cool but I really don't like them.

fair enough, I understand what you mean. To me they're interesting and deserving of respect.

Re Cumbria, imagine you live in a country that has lax gun ownership and arms their police. If you really want to kill people, does the fact that the police are armed stop you? Do some research in the USA.

Why is lax to arm your own police?! They're supposed to serve and protect you from situations out of the ordinary, and sometimes ones that might require lethal force. If this was unnecessary why having armed response unit? Don't you really see how ludicrous this all is?
The police does stop you indeed if they're armed and find you in the middle of shooting at people, they shoot your a** dead and rightly so, your argument is not valid.
Once again, the 3 major cases of shooting crimes in this country could have been stopped way before they got out of control, had the police officers that intervened on the scene straight away been armed. Let's not ever forget that. You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Once again, the 3 major cases of shooting crimes in this country could have been stopped way before they got out of control, had the police officers that intervened on the scene straight away been armed. Let's not ever forget that. You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

This argument works both ways: e.g Jean Charles de Menezes

Had those officers not been armed an innocent man would still be alive.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

This argument works both ways: e.g Jean Charles de Menezes

Had those officers not been armed an innocent man would still be alive.

sure, but you know why that happened? Because of incompetence. Police officers that live in one of the most important cities of the world should be trained on a level on par with the rest of the armed police forces in the world. It's again a political choice not to have armed response or anti-riot units that are competent enough, see what happened with the riots of last year as another example, that was good stuff, wasn't it? And you know why it happened? Cos police forces have been turned into a joke in this country. You keep on wanting to contain violence and threats with the wrong methods, applying common sense and society values to social layers that don't give a rat's bottom to your idea of nice and civilised society, and when there are no other choices left, you make mistakes because you're not adequately prepared to face such threats.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

that is SO hypocritical!! You feel rational, intelligent and culturally advanced, yet you're cool to send our military forces abroad to kill people for their own sake? Nice! Some of you lot are really a laugh...

You're ready to stand in front of the graves of those innocents who died because of a government political agenda and say "yes, we did the right thing"?

Next time ask what my beliefs are before jumping to wild assumptions - this is not so much of a laugh as laughable.

Personally I don't think British armed forces should be abroad unless it is to deal with a threat to the country's nationals or interests. If there is a real and genuine threat then deal with it - is this not your own mantra albeit on a personal level?

Talking about semantics, I don't know what you mean by 'government political agenda.' If it's defending the Falklands, then I will support what my government did. If it's about Iraq and Afghanistan then I'd struggle. It will always be that for me the end must justify the means.

I'm ready to stand in front of the graves of people that have died through gun crime and say that I believe that the state of gun law in my country is good.

What would the families of the victims say if you told them that gun laws should be relaxed to allow more widespread ownership? Who knows...

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Next time ask what my beliefs are before jumping to wild assumptions - this is not so much of a laugh as laughable.

Personally I don't think British armed forces should be abroad unless it is to deal with a threat to the country's nationals or interests. If there is a real and genuine threat then deal with it - is this not your own mantra albeit on a personal level?

so you think we should still have armed forces? I mean, do we really need them? Who's gonna attack us?

Talking about semantics, I don't know what you mean by 'government political agenda.' If it's defending the Falklands, then I will support what my government did. If it's about Iraq and Afghanistan then I'd struggle. It will always be that for me the end must justify the means.

the agenda is about disarming civilians to avoid problems or armed uprisings, no matter if good or bad. You really need to have a blind faith in your government and their coherence to be cool with that.. which one did you vote, the conservatives or the lib dems?

I'm ready to stand in front of the graves of people that have died through gun crime and say that I believe that the state of gun law in my country is good.

What would the families of the victims say if you told them that gun laws should be relaxed to allow more widespread ownership? Who knows...

Hood

The gun laws in our country are a political farce. I mean, do you really think that the regulations that are in place now make this country any safer?
The prohibition of pistols or semiauto guns doesn't make the ones that are left any less dangerous, does it? I can still own as many bolt action rifles as I want, and you know how lethal and fast loading a Lee-Enfield can be.
The gun restrictions that were put in place were just a cunning political move to make the best of a national knickers-in-a-twist moment, where once again people didn't think for a minute that maybe the nutjobs that did what they did shouldn't have been issued a license in the first place? No, it was easier to make the best of it, and taking guns off honest people who kept them for sport, hunting, as a family memory (just thinking about all the vets bring backs that had to be destroyed gives me the shivers).
And even when the Cumbria shooting happened, which to me was the evidence that is not a matter of gun ban or not, and proof of the stupidity of the ban, people still blamed the guns, not the shooters and the fact that society didn't do anything to control better and support these deranged individuals.
Yes, if you don't see nor understand this, unfortunately you're just cattle, and the government is your butcher.