Here we go again

[batffink]

A congresswoman shot in the head, a judge and a nine year old girl killed in another shooting spree.
When the fuck are the American people going to do something about it?
The same old cry goes up every time parroting the Constitution about the "Right to bear Arms" even though it was written in the 1700's and bears no relation to modern automatic weapons.
How many more schoolkids are going to be killed by unbalanced nutters who can buy guns from the corner store like I buy a six-pack.
I truly despair for the innocents shot to death every year in the Land of the Free. Too free sometimes I think.

What do my American friends think?

[jwham]

Gun laws only disarms law abiding citizens, while leaving them in the hands of criminals, to think that to banned guns is a cure all is foolish, you're old enough to know that. With gun control, your own government may be an unwitting accomplice in your murder.

If you're going to import criminals, you should have the means to defend yourselves inside the boundaries of your own country. And it would be stupid to disarm the populace during an invasion.

It’s also true that if the government can’t prevent crime, can’t punish crime reliably, and can’t be trusted not to misuse the machinery of criminal justice, then individual Americans are going to have to defend themselves.

[batffink]

The problem as I see it my friend is that the killer WAS a law abiding citizen who could buy a gun far too easily. Checks need to be far more stringent and far reaching. I know you can't stop everyone but by golly you could weed out a fucking lot of them.

[jwham]

This man tried to join the armed services and was denied, so someone in the government knew he was a danger and did nothing. I do agree that Checks need to be far more stringent and far reaching

[batffink]

Originally Posted by jwham

Gun laws only disarms law abiding citizens, while leaving them in the hands of criminals, to think that to banned guns is a cure all is foolish, you're old enough to know that. With gun control, your own government may be an unwitting accomplice in your murder.

If you're going to import criminals, you should have the means to defend yourselves inside the boundaries of your own country. And it would be stupid to disarm the populace during an invasion.

It’s also true that if the government can’t prevent crime, can’t punish crime reliably, and can’t be trusted not to misuse the machinery of criminal justice, then individual Americans are going to have to defend themselves.

If this statement is true then I feel sorry for Americans. You are stating that your authorities are incompetent and have no control. This, in the greatest country in the world. Frankly I don't believe it.

[jwham]

Well tell me how incompetent is it to have a congress woman on a street corner with no police and no security, most county fairs have tighter security than this, so yes our government is incompetent in many ways, and as our many believe..

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

[batffink]

I really do think that you have missed the point. Why is it now necessary in the USA to have a security guard or protection when you want to be in public. Was it the judge's fault or the nine year old girl's fault that they didn't have security?
And in any case what good was security to Jack Kennedy?
If this nutter was rejected by the Army because he was mentally unstable, why was he able to get a license and buy a fucking gun?
I know that Australia isn't perfect ie the Port Arthur massacre but at least here the politicians, jurists and schoolkids can walk the streets safely. The reason is that it is nearly fucking impossible to get any sort of firearm here without intensive background checks by State and Federal police.
The gun culture in the USA is truly mad and if nothing is done the carnage will continue.

[jwham]

America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?. . .Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise.

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2


* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997


* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.


* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

[batffink]

Why is my friend Jwham the only one of this board replying to this topic? Isn't anyone else interested?

[justmetoo]

Gun control is not the answer. It would not have stopped this kid from picking up a weapon. And contrary to your comment, getting a firearm is not as simple as picking up a six-pack.

I'm a hunter and as I write this response I'm looking at a gun case that holds 6 shotguns and 4 rifles. Absent are any handguns as I really don't have a use for them.

So, if gun control is the answer what kind of guns do you control? The gun in question in this shooting is legal for hunting deer and I know people that use them in that manner. Are you proposing that gun control take away hunting weapons?

It's not as simple as you make it out to be. And contrary to what popular opinions are, most places in the US are perfectly safe to walk the streets without fear of personal harm.

[HRH1948]

Originally Posted by batffink

A congresswoman shot in the head, a judge and a nine year old girl killed in another shooting spree.
When the fuck are the American people going to do something about it?
The same old cry goes up every time parroting the Constitution about the "Right to bear Arms" even though it was written in the 1700's and bears no relation to modern automatic weapons.
How many more school kids are going to be killed by unbalanced nutters who can buy guns from the corner store like I buy a six-pack.
I truly despair for the innocents shot to death every year in the Land of the Free. Too free sometimes I think.

What do my American friends think?

The most remarkable Battfink,

Exactly how the bleeding fuck can you be, "too free"?

If the same thing happened in Texas, the former TA&M Cadet, "Rick Perry" would have nailed the little demented twit like a rogue coyote. He's already on record regarding rogue coyotes. So, would several other members of the crowd. I would have hesitated for at least a second regarding bullet penetration and collatral damage, but the little twit would be now dead and the extreme cost of his defense would have been avoided.

In reality, the little shit should have been publically lynched on the spot in an open display of disgust and public indignation.

This has been a horrible experience and if the truth was truly known, it was more likely orchestrated by the liberal "Let the government control everything folks" rather than the conservative, "Let the people control the government folks". I realize just how outrageous that statement is. However, it makes as much sense as the liberal twits saying that "Gaby’s" blood is on Sarah Palin's hands. Give me a fucking break! Oh please, give me a fucking break.

Removing guns and removing freedoms isn't the answer. I carry a 45 caliber 1911 Colt at all times, I have an M1 carbine and a Winchester 870 pump shotgun loaded with #6 shot, in the back of my vehicle at all times. Combined, they weigh a hell of lot less and are much easier to carry than a 180 pound policeman with a weak ass 38 caliber Smith and Wesson Revolver.

With all rhetoric aside, we have more than ample gun control laws. Felons and the mentally impaired or disturbed aren't supposed to be able to purchase firearms. However, there seems to be no problem with these mal-contents simply falsifying the purchase forms.

Hell, we have satellites that can count the fleas on my dogs back and make a report to the SPCA. Why can't we apply this remarkable technology to prevent the round pegs from going into the square holes?

Could it a part on some master design to remove our freedoms and leave us at the complete mercy of our liberal “take ultimate control government"?

Does anyone else remember the carjacking and mayhem disaster that occurred in Florida about a decade ago? Florida had just passed a carry conceal firearms law. Suddenly, rental cars became a target of vandals, thieves, rapists and murderers. It was a national dilemma without an apparent solution or reason that was apparent to the liberal media.

Think it through. If you are a thief, vandal, murderer, or rapist, why would you attack a car from Florida that has the right to carry a firearm when you could attack a car with rental plates, with tourists on board that couldn't conceivably be carrying protection.

Texas is a very polite place. There is very little road rage and people actually say, "Hello and Good day". Doors are held open for the elderly and the feminine sex. Doing otherwise can get your ass shot off!

Exactly, what makes more sense?

With my utmost respect to the most remarkable Battfink!

It's just that we must agree to disagree on this point.

Come to Texas and we will continue the debate.

A most interesting thread my old friend,

HRH1948

[batffink]

Ah yes. As to be expected, a lucid and concise reply from my old mate HRH. I may not have made myself entirely clear in my previous postings. I realise that criminals and terrorists will always have guns and that hunters will also be entitled to them but I still can't see why every damn household in the country seems to have an arsenal at its disposal. Having been brought up in a country where the Police were unarmed and still hugely respected, the sight of armed law officers still disturbs me.
I respect your views old mate and those of Jwham but I still believe that Americans have a very unhealthy obsession with guns. All the theories about keeping arms to repel invaders etc. fall on my deaf ears. Who in God's name is going to invade the USA. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
ps. Great to see you participating again you old reprobate.

[Crotch_Ripper]

Count me among the well armed. If I were there that little piece of shit wouldn't have needed an attorney. He would have needed the undertaker.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six

[Sierra]

I am not fanatical about guns, either way.

On the one hand - I own a shotgun, which I would not hesitate to use should someone be foolish enough to ignore the barking dog and enter my home uninvited. I was given gun safety training by my father as a very young girl because we lived in a rural community and although he kept his locked up not everyone was that smart. I do not believe that owning a gun makes you a vigilante or even inherently more dangerous than your neighbor.

On the other hand, I am aggressively and vocally opposed to automatic and semi-automatic weapons being made available to just anyone. A handgun, in this instance, would have meant that ONE person got shot - bad enough but likely that little girl and several bystanders would still be alive. The shooter fired off THIRTY ROUNDS before anyone could do anything about it - and only then because he had to stop to reload. He bought that gun legally.

HRH, this happened in Arizona, which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the US. The congresswoman herself owned a Glock and was a pretty good shot. The judge was a member of a gun club. More guns are not the answer.

I'm not sure what the answer is in a society which believes so strongly in a citizen's right to have weapons powerful enough to take out a small town. All I know is that little girl deserved the chance to grow up.

[snarkopo]

Wow so much to reply to here.

Once again Batffink you have very cleverly touched a nerve with us Yanks as I know you knew you would. You are a master shit-disturber but I say that with fondness as you are one of my favorite members here.

Criticizing the U.S. guarantees a reply from our very patriotic jwham at the very least. But he makes some interesting points (if true) and I wonder what your considered reply to them might be.

As was mentioned you cannot just go and buy a gun along with your six-pack here. There is a waiting period and (for what it's worth) a background check before one can take delivery of their shiny new weapon of choice.

HRH, the man I most respect here or just about anywhere, makes some points I feel compelled to reply to.

Just to play Devils advocate for a minute

Removing guns and removing freedoms isn't the answer. I carry a 45 caliber 1911 Colt at all times, I have an M1 carbine and a Winchester 870 pump shotgun loaded with #6 shot, in the back of my vehicle at all times. Combined, they weigh a hell of lot less and are much easier to carry than a 180 pound policeman with a weak ass 38 caliber Smith and Wesson Revolver.

How many people have you shot with your arsenal HRH? I mean here, not in Nam, in the name of keeping the peace and stopping a crime?
If allowing good old law abiding citizens to own firearms is a way to counter the bad guys who would be the only ones with guns, why didn't someone take out this fuck while he was shooting people? I mean c'mon, it's Arizona!
Just how many times has something like this been prevented because the general public was armed? Although I generally subscribe to the notion that taking guns away from "good" people leaves only bad people with them, in practice I have hardly seen that to make a difference.

I think Sierra was making this point as well but I'm more wordy.

This is funny...

Texas is a very polite place......
Doing otherwise can get your ass shot off!

So is the politeness from within or from without? Does it take the threat of death to keep people civil?

And while I am generally a liberal, not bleeding and less so with every passing year, I am vehemently against any legislation that takes away any more of our rights and freedoms. Including gun laws. Fucking Nanny government and female politicians passing stupid laws to protect the stupid at the expense of everyone else.
This is America, or was, and I'de like to keep it that way.

[menace]

Lets look at things from the beginning. Why was the Second Amendment enacted? So that white people can shoot the Indians. Then so that white people could shoot black people. Now the Mexicans are the problem.

Gun culture doesn't really exist, it is in fact a culture of violence. America was created through violence, expanded with violence, grown by violence and today it holds onto what it attained through violence, weather threatened or acted upon. Violence is not just socially acceptable, but even celebrated.

They say criminals will be the only ones that have guns. Are they unarmed today? But they say the public is also armed, so it makes them safe. HOW? Does an M16 stop a bullet from a Beretta? Think about what happens when an armed criminal breaks into a house. If he encounters an unarmed tenant, he has to choose between 10 years in prison and a life in prison. And when he encounters an armed tenant, the criminal has to choose between killing or being killed.
Oh, but it's really not the problem in him being a criminal, since we know that 'criminal' is just a code word for a n*****.

The so called freedom through guns? I can see how a redneck could believe that shotguns and automatic rifles will keep the tank and jet fighter armed government at bay. Oh hold on, it's not really to keep the government at bay but the wrong people out of the government. All those liberals and civil rights campaigners better not think about enforcing equal rights around here or we'll give 'em the wrong end of the 12 gauge, yeehaa!

[jwham]

Originally Posted by menace

Lets look at things from the beginning. Why was the Second Amendment enacted? So that white people can shoot the Indians. Then so that white people could shoot black people. Now the Mexicans are the problem.

Gun culture doesn't really exist, it is in fact a culture of violence. America was created through violence, expanded with violence, grown by violence and today it holds onto what it attained through violence, weather threatened or acted upon. Violence is not just socially acceptable, but even celebrated.

They say criminals will be the only ones that have guns. Are they unarmed today? But they say the public is also armed, so it makes them safe. HOW? Does an M16 stop a bullet from a Beretta? Think about what happens when an armed criminal breaks into a house. If he encounters an unarmed tenant, he has to choose between 10 years in prison and a life in prison. And when he encounters an armed tenant, the criminal has to choose between killing or being killed.
Oh, but it's really not the problem in him being a criminal, since we know that 'criminal' is just a code word for a n*****.

The so called freedom through guns? I can see how a redneck could believe that shotguns and automatic rifles will keep the tank and jet fighter armed government at bay. Oh hold on, it's not really to keep the government at bay but the wrong people out of the government. All those liberals and civil rights campaigners better not think about enforcing equal rights around here or we'll give 'em the wrong end of the 12 gauge, yeehaa!

You are kidding right? You must be drinking coolaid. This comment has no defense, no argument. Just call conservatives idiots, racists or whatever you decide is the vulgarity of the day. I know many educated conservatives, liberals, and moderates who can have intelligent, civil, meaningful discussions about the issues without relying on name-calling. This argument can't stand the light of day because it makes no sense whatsoever, unless you can show those facts.

[justmetoo]

When I wrote my original response I was not aware that he had a 30 shot clip. Clearly there is no use for that in any type of hunting situation. It is unfortunate that such a clip is legal.

The dilemma I get into is that I'm a law abiding citizen. As such I believe I have the right to bear, within reason, guns. I don't have a need for a fully automatic weapon and agree that those should be banned. I do see the need for a semi-automatic weapon however. I trust everyone on here knows the difference between the two. I think the one should be illegal and the other should not.

I do agree that there should be tighter background checks as well. This kid should not have been allowed to purchase a weapon of any sorts. I know that this really sends a lot of people over the edge but at some point someone should not be allowed to own a gun. No different than people that get caught driving drunk shouldn't be driving.

People here in the US don't understand the difference between rights and privileges. Driving is a privilege yet most people consider it a right. Guns could easily be handled the same way in my opinion. If you're good, you get to play with your toys type of thing. Fuck up and you lose them.

Just my 2 cents.

[justmetoo]

Originally Posted by mat2001uk

Personally if the idea of not letting someone own a gun sent someone else 'over the edge', I would put them right at the top of my banning list.

There are many people over here that are fanatic about that. They feel that is the beginning of someone chipping away at their rights to own a gun.

[menace]

Originally Posted by jwham

You are kidding right? You must be drinking coolaid. This comment has no defense, no argument. Just call conservatives idiots, racists or whatever you decide is the vulgarity of the day. I know many educated conservatives, liberals, and moderates who can have intelligent, civil, meaningful discussions about the issues without relying on name-calling. This argument can't stand the light of day because it makes no sense whatsoever, unless you can show those facts.

No, I am not kidding. I'm saying it like it is.

I do not see these people as being conservatives. I think they are much further to the right from that. I am not calling names in lack of argument, I'm calling names because they fit the bearers.

And if you are capable to get past what you see as a personal insult to yourself, you would see my argument is logic and common sense, and that I went through three quarters of a post without name calling.
This part of my post is obviously something you cannot handle, so you decide to focus on the name calling, as I'm sure you will do in response to this post as well, because that is what you CAN deal with.