Gun control and such.

[wiggy]

If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness.  You are the reason that hand guns should not ever be owned by civilians. Thank god you're across a giant pond.

Also, it's beyond ignorant and presumptuous to assume that, because hand guns are legal here, EVERYONE here is ok with it. Does everyone in the UK like Earl Grey tea and Fish & Chips?

Wake up.

[FritzWhite]

If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness.

I'm all for civil discourse, but you're only going to hurt your argument if you try to make this up as you go. I already mentioned an 11 year old was stabbed to death next door me by a man claiming to hear voices. I can share a LOT more actual situations where deadly force was necessary, but I don't need to. Common sense dictates that worst case scenarios, however seemingly unlikely, can and DO happen everyday.

I'll share a situation anyways where deadly force would have been justifiable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

[amiga1200]

 
i won't be dictated to by somebody that:
1, is in a country that it's citizens/civilians can protect themselves by way head-blasters.
and what REALLY fuckin irks me about this, is what i did fail to convey earlier, is WE GET FUCKED BY THE LAW FOR THE MERE ACT OF DEFENDING OUR PROPERTY AND FAMILY!
you have NO such restrictions.
2, as with '1', WE ARE NOT ALLOWED ANY FORM OF WEAPON, FUCK FIREARMS, WE DO SHIT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL!
3, they can try, like i said, that you missed, i DON'T ABIDE BY MOB RULE, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY I'VE NEVER MET, OR HAS ANY FUCKIN STAKE IN MY SHIT, NOR I THEIRS!  
...
oh yeah, i believe i've successfully conveyed myself this time. caps 'n all!  
[edit]
i'll still KILL them with my bare hands.
why did america kick the bankers out of the country, because of this VERY fuckin reason. (boston tea party and prior)

[monjici]

i won't be dictated to by somebody that:
1, is in a country that it's citizens/civilians can protect themselves by way head-blasters.
and what REALLY fuckin irks me about this, is what i did fail to convey earlier, is WE GET FUCKED BY THE LAW FOR THE MERE ACT OF DEFENDING OUR PROPERTY AND FAMILY!
you have NO such restrictions.
2, as with '1', WE ARE NOT ALLOWED ANY FORM OF WEAPON, FUCK FIREARMS, WE DO SHIT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL!
3, they can try, like i said, that you missed, i DON'T ABIDE BY MOB RULE, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY I'VE NEVER MET, OR HAS ANY FUCKIN STAKE IN MY SHIT, NOR I THEIRS!  
...
oh yeah, i believe i've successfully conveyed myself this time. caps 'n all!  
[edit]
i'll still KILL them with my bare hands.
why did america kick the bankers out of the country, because of this VERY fuckin reason. (boston tea party and prior)

it would surely be entertaining to meet and have a few beers in an irish pub, but I would be afraid to end up with two black eyes

[sheep2001]

If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness.  You are the reason that hand guns should not ever be owned by civilians. Thank god you're across a giant pond.

Also, it's beyond ignorant and presumptuous to assume that, because hand guns are legal here, EVERYONE here is ok with it. Does everyone in the UK like Earl Grey tea and Fish & Chips?

Wake up.

Crossed the line with the fish and chips.  You can keep the earl grey, but I'll take the fish and chips every day of the week. Lol.  We ALL love the f&c.  And if you'd only give it a chance (along with real bacon) you'd love it too. 

[amiga1200]

 
well, it depends really, just kick back with a shit eating on your face, take your time on the booze, and watch them get mega smashed, fall about, talk shit and pass out.
fun stuff.
to tell the truth, one of the best pub types to get a fill and a few pints.
it's what the rest are there for, albeit it they play for the sweepstakes, and i can't take me beer.

[FritzWhite]

The only thing I'm gonna say is. If someone wants to kill/hurt/intimidate/whatever... they are going to do it with anything they can get their hands on. If not a pistol, maybe a shotgun or rifle. If not those, a knife. If not that, then something else. I will also state, that someone that is actually going to buy the gun, have it registered under their name, pays to be certified CCW isn't the ones you have to worry about. Why would they spend that much money to just commit a crime?

Here is the deal. A criminal is what he/she is... a CRIMINAL... they wont pay for any of that shit. Also, if the Government happens to finally take the guns away from civilians, a criminal will still be able to get their hands on firearms. A criminal wont care because they are planning on breaking the law anyway.

Last but not least, the Government wants us all to be sheep. They want us to follow them, no questions asked. They already think they own everything we have.
If they happen to take our firearms away, they WILL turn into a tyrannical force that we a nation wont be able to anything about.

Just my $0.02.

My now very, VERY ex-friend has a CCW and a number of handguns. One day he pinned his wife against a wall, held a pistol to her head and threatened to blow her brains out.

In front of their 3 children.

He then tried to kidnap his youngest son. He was arrested, charged with several felonies, but managed to plead to some. Sort of misdemeanor and is still in procession of all his handguns and CCW.

I don't like to bring up personal experiences, as they are only anecdotal evidence, but this particular event seems to very effectively argue the "need not fear" mentality when it comes to people who have registered firearms and are "trained" (any moron monkey can get a CCW.  Let's be realistic here, it's NOT hard to do).

As an FYI, this is not the reason that I'm not in favor of handgun ownership. I was opposed to such long before. This event just happened to ruin a life-long friendship.

You can trade the word guns for knife and the phrase blow her brains out for slit her throat and you'd have the same argument. You argued earlier that guns are not comparable to vehicles or other life hazards because they're man made and can kill you. The same is true for archery, sword fencing, and martial arts.

Unless you can qualify why it's unique and not comparable, the vehicle comparison still applies. One can have the same scenario with a vehicle as your friend did with his firearm. It can be used irresponsibly to kill people and there are people on the road who are a danger to everyone yet still have driver's licenses. The system's not perfect, but I would rather maintain my liberty then have it stripped away because of the misdeeds of a minority.

I don't have much more to say on the subject unless someone wants to keep talking about it in case you want to close the thread.

God, I KNEW that would be your argument.

He didn't hold a knife to her head, despite the fact that this happened in their kitchen, with several knives on hand. Instead he went to the bedroom, unlocked he safe, loaded his pistol, and then came back into the kitchen to hold it to her head.

A knife is a tool with many uses. A hand gun is a weapon which has one, single use.

Fencing is a sport in which nobody is ever killed. A hand gun is a weapon made to kill another person.

Martial arts is a means by which to defend one's self with their bare hands and feet. A hand gun can slaughter a room full of people without ever coming into contact with them, and in a matter of seconds.

Archery was conceived as a means by which to hunt more effectively. It of course has been used as a weapon. It takes a great deal of training and skill to become an effective archer, and I've yet to see a news reel of some kid walking into his/her school and destroying dozens of lives with a bow and arrow. A hand gun can be wielded in a deadly manner by anyone who can pick it up. Point at crowd, pull trigger.

I feel that I've already very clearly identified the differences between a handgun and EVEEYTHING you've compared it to.

In the end, comparisons are a useless argument anyway.  What difference does it make if a watermelon could be dropped off a 10 story busing and kill someone below?  The point is that it doesn't happen, and if it did, not to the degree that kids walk into schools with their daddy's machine gun and kill dozens of innocent people. The comparisons only exemplify the lack of a logical argument for the ownership of deadly weapons. An effective argument cannot be based on either speculation or (and I mean no offense here) nonsensical analogies/comparicsons.

The other problem with US gun control is Mexico and the cartels. Mexico may seem like an irrelevant 3rd world country to some euros, but they are a very significant factor. If guns are banned in the US then the cartels will have more power and we'll be a much softer, riper target for terrorists.

[Megatron]

The other problem with US gun control is Mexico and the cartels. Mexico may seem like an irrelevant 3rd world country to some euros, but they are a very significant factor. If guns are banned in the US then the cartels will have more power and we'll be a much softer, riper target for terrorists.

I stay out of all of this because, well, I have better things to do and I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.

However, unless you have some evidence to back this up, this claim is bogus.  I can only speak to that because A) I live in San Diego, and B) I happen to be a behavior therapist that works with the San Diego government, specifically the Office of Immigration, where I correspond regularly with the Mexican Federal Police.  The "cartels" are the boogeymen of Mexico and a serious issue for illegal activities...and not ONCE has gun control come up as an issue for dealing with them, or that it would be problematic.  

[FritzWhite]

The other problem with US gun control is Mexico and the cartels. Mexico may seem like an irrelevant 3rd world country to some euros, but they are a very significant factor. If guns are banned in the US then the cartels will have more power and we'll be a much softer, riper target for terrorists.

I stay out of all of this because, well, I have better things to do and I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.

However, unless you have some evidence to back this up, this claim is bogus.  I can only speak to that because A) I live in San Diego, and B) I happen to be a behavior therapist that works with the San Diego government, specifically the Office of Immigration where I correspond regularly with the Mexican Federal Police.  The "cartels" are the boogeymen of Mexico and a serious issue for illegal activities...and not ONCE has gun control come up as an issue for dealing with them, or that it would be problematic. 

It's not an issue because it's not illegal. If guns are outlawed, the cartel will meet the demand that will form in that void. They're successful in getting other things across the border so why would guns be any different? They'll go where the money is like they always have.

[Blumpkin]

This is certainly interesting. Unfortunately it seems there are rarely moderates in gun control debates.

My observation has been that most anti-gun people know nothing about guns. And most pro-gun people want to ignore common sense practices with regards to guns.

[Megatron]

It's not an issue because it's not illegal. If guns are outlawed, the cartel will meet the demand that will form in that void. They're successful in getting other things across the border so why would guns be any different? They'll go where the money is like they always have.

They already do.  lol  Your argument is that with residential disarmament the cartels will flood guns in to the country (again, which some already do) and "the bad people" will get them?
Again, I'm not taking sides in this, but first of all there is a difference between partial and total disarmament (meaning owning a shotgun vs an assault rifle are two different things).  Second, this "void" won't exist.  Besides, the vast majority of these 'bad people' are dealt with by authorities, not civilians.  
This particular argument is based on fear, not facts.

Please, go back to your discussion about the ethicallity and whatnot, but remember that ,some of us actually have first hand experience with some stuff.  

[FritzWhite]

It's not an issue because it's not illegal. If guns are outlawed, the cartel will meet the demand that will form in that void. They're successful in getting other things across the border so why would guns be any different? They'll go where the money is like they always have.

They already do.  lol  Your argument is that with residential disarmament the cartels will flood guns in to the country (again, which some already do) and "the bad people" will get them?
Again, I'm not taking sides in this, but first of all there is a difference between partial and total disarmament (meaning owning a shotgun vs an assault rifle are two different things).  Second, this "void" won't exist.  Besides, the vast majority of these 'bad people' are dealt with by authorities, not civilians.  
This particular argument is based on fear, not facts.

Please, go back to your discussion about the ethicallity and whatnot, but remember that ,some of us actually have first hand experience with some stuff.  

You are so condescending I don't even want to address you, but how can you give yourself so much credit for living near the border and having a government job. I'm an hour from you and I don't bring up my locale to pump my credibility.

Secondly, partial disarmament is a precursor to total disarmament. You can laugh all you want about your knowledge on the subject of the cartels already bringing guns in, but it's not going to be very funny to me if I I'm disarmed to maintain my status as a law abiding citizen.

You put too much faith in the authorities to protect. It's not even their job. Also, if you want to keep being rude and pedantic then you can talk to the wall.

[Megatron]

So basically when someone presents facts to counter your argument, you stick your fingers in your ears and walk away?  

***Quick edit*** Really?  I don't even disagree with your STANCE on the matter.
But if you can't handle someone debunking your opinion, then you're arguing with emotion which may as well not even be an argument at all - cause it's pointless on both sides.

[FritzWhite]

So basically when someone presents facts to counter your argument, you stick your fingers in your ears and walk away? 

What facts are you referring to that I didn't just address?  I'm not walking away from anything. You tried to argue with me last year and back then you also referenced your career to lend yourself credibility. You're regurgitating the same stuff. Is that what you do in your day to day life every time you get into it with someone?

 "I'm a behavior health therapist from San Diego, blah, blah..."  Get some new material already; you sound stale.

I know you're probably hovering over your keyboard right now, breathing heavily and clicking refresh, but I have stuff to take care of so I can't respond as quickly.

[Megatron]

What facts are you referring to that I didn't just address?  I'm not walking away from anything. You tried to argue with me last year and back then you also referenced your career to lend yourself credibility. You're regurgitating the same stuff. Is that what you do in your day to day life every time you get into it with someone?

 "I'm a behavior health therapist from San Diego, blah, blah..."  Get some new material already; you sound stale.

I know you're probably hovering over your keyboard right now, breathing heavily and clicking refresh, but I have stuff to take care of so I can't respond as quickly.

I bring up my credentials not to brag or showboat (it's not something that brings in the money, if that's what you think).  I do it because I have credibility.  I'm not some guy with an opinion and a google search bar.  You presented BS facts, and I called you out on it.  Now instead of admitting you got overzealous with your opinion, or offering actual facts/information on the subject, you attack my character.  Which means you have little or nothing to actually back up anything you say.  And the only reason I actually continue on with this, is because I find it funny to hear what others have to say when they're angry.