for all the so-called intellectual liberals (gun control)

[Planter91C2]

http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html

"Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed. "


"When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125). " That's how it is here in Denmark. If you defend yourself you risk getting charged for violence against the criminal


"A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet." Any woman who kills a rapist in self defense will have my support - I don't care if a rapist is killed - we don't need him anyway


"We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid."

HOWEVER - and yes here it comes from someone who likes guns and own one himself...: As long as you don't register guns you will have guns in the wrong hands and daily abuse of guns. That's how it is and you can't argue against it. On the other hand I fully understand why law abiding gun owners are afraid of registering all guns. If only you could trust the government there would be nothing wrong in having to register all guns and owners. But as we all know politicians are not to be trusted

[prattrc]

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Same goes for registration. Only upstanding, non-criminal members of society will register their guns, and shouldn't have to. Those who plan on committing a violent crime will not register their guns, but they should have to.

I don't know the solution, but I can't imagine a plane full of armed and uniformed police officers being hijacked by anyone.

PS, that rapist quote is frightening. Has the liberal dogma become so twisted in it's own self-righteousness, it actually advocates non-violent resistance to rape? On moral grounds? WWJD? Turn the other cheek, I suppose.

Here in Denmark it's almost impossible even to get near a handgun without first being background checked and registered with the gun. That system actually works. It's not a question if we feel like registering. No register - no gun, very simple and it works.

We have almost no crime involving guns. Of course we have criminals who owns illegal guns, but that's unavoidable in any country no matter the law and system.

The problem with not registering guns:

I go to the gunshop and buy 10 guns. 2 days later I sell them to the "nice" kids down the corner. The kids istantly feel like little gods and start playing "who should live and who should die".

If those 10 guns had been registered the police would find out if I sold them. (If the system worked as here in Denmark).

I fully understand gun owners in the US being nervous about losing their guns. I'm nervous about losing mine too. I am pro gun, but I'm also realistic.

Think of the most stupid jerk you have ever known. Would you feel good knowing he owned a gun? I wouldn't.

There is no easy solution I know that. I just think that gun owners should try looking at things from a different angle than they usually do.

[prattrc]

All good points.

It's funny, I'm not even a gun owner. I've never owned anything more than an air rifle. I would, but simply haven't. I'm hardly an enthusiast, just a guy.

I have a friend who works for a very liberal member of the US Congress, he has told me that the long term plan beyond simple registration is an all out ban, then a confiscation based on the registry. I didn't believe the NRA line until someone behind the scenes (stage left) told me it's true. I thought the NRA were just a bunch of paranoid wackos. I don't know anymore.

I stand by the idea that law breakers will always break the law. Curbing violent offenders should not infringe upon the personal liberties of the law-abiding public. Tough laws strictly enforced by a "to-the-letter" judicial system is a more focussed approach, I think. Triple sentences for offenders who use guns, or for those who provide guns to offenders. Like you said about the rapist... we don't need them anyway.

Originally posted by prattrc
All good points.

he has told me that the long term plan beyond simple registration is an all out ban, then a confiscation based on the registry.

And this is in fact the biggest of all gun related problems. I am 100% against a total ban and confiscation of all guns.

[Milu]

The confiscation of handguns has already happened in the UK. It seems that the rest of Europe is going the same way. I enjoy targetshooting, and I believe in firearms for personal protection. I have the greatest respect for the job the police have to do but I am afraid to rely on them for my personal protection. The confiscation of legally purchased and registered handguns has had no effect on gun related crime in the UK, the officially produced statistics showing otherwise were laughable and were massaged to show the desired result to the point of being a bad joke, it is true that when guns are banned only criminals have guns.
Watch out the rest of the western world.

[makaio]

I'm a gun owner, and an avid target shooter. The crazy thing with most of the people here in the USA is they think that an all out ban on guns would stop all this violence and shooting deaths. Well, it won't!

Guns don't kill people, People kill People! Say guns were outlawed, and there wasn't even one gun left here, besides what the military has. People would kill with knives, or some other dangerous weapon.

[Saffs]

Originally posted by Milu
The confiscation of handguns has already happened in the UK. It seems that the rest of Europe is going the same way. I enjoy targetshooting, and I believe in firearms for personal protection. I have the greatest respect for the job the police have to do but I am afraid to rely on them for my personal protection. The confiscation of legally purchased and registered handguns has had no effect on gun related crime in the UK, the officially produced statistics showing otherwise were laughable and were massaged to show the desired result to the point of being a bad joke, it is true that when guns are banned only criminals have guns.
Watch out the rest of the western world.

As someone who is from the UK and works in the US, there's is NO comparison to gun control issues for both Countries - the UK has been a largely gun free society for a long time before the ban.
People in the UK - prior to the ban - just have not processed guns like people do in the US; it's not the same: your average person did not possess a handgun for personal protection at home or in the car, and probably didn't see a need to, this is the average person I'm talking about here. The hand gun ban in the UK was meant to reflect popular choice, which a lot of people supported and wanted - there was gun enthusiasts who were very unhappy, of course, but, I suspect they were/are a minority. I suspect that overall the ban wasn't about the absolute reduction in gun related crime, it was in the light of a mass murder in Scotland at a school where someone who had a gun license shot a lot of kids there - someone very mentally ill, of course - and public opinion took the line of "ban handguns please". I'd love to hear other people from the UK feelings over this.
The ban was just for hand guns - I think Farmers et al can have guns with no problem if the meet the criteria for a gun license.
As a further note, the Conservative party were in government at the time - until May '97 - and instigated the laws around the ban, i.e, not Socialists or Liberals.
I'm really not aware of gun control issues in mainland Europe, so I can't comment. And, although working in the US, I'm certainly in no position to tell people what to do with their guns here, and I won't.
Only discuss the issue of guns in the UK if you are from the UK or have lived there etc. People who haven't traveled much casting their opinions on how other Countries should do things is pretty much worthless. The way Countries run and how it affects you are only to be experienced and understood if you've lived there, not from a few visits and reading statistics that could be biased etc.
I'm certainly not going to tell people in the US what to do with their gun control issues, I'm in no position to.

[Saffs]

Originally posted by makaio

Say guns were outlawed, and there wasn't even one gun left here, besides what the military has. People would kill with knives, or some other dangerous weapon.

But there wouldn't be drive-by knife throwings though.

[Milu]

Saffs.
As it happens I was living in the UK at the time of the ban and I was very actively involved in fighting it. The imposition of the gun ban was one of the reasons that made me decide to leave the UK. I now run my business from Switzerland and N. Italy and spend most of my time outside the UK. My experience with firearms for sport, defence and their related laws is not only based in the UK and Europe but in the States, parts of S. America and the carribean, all places where I have lived and worked for extended periods.

The shooting that acted as a catalyst was by a registered firearms owner, however there were very serious concerns with the way his FAC had been approved and the senior police officers concerned took early retirement. Public opinion is notoriously fickle and most much controlled by the media, with the exception of the London Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph who were lukewarm the media was pushing for a ban. Most people outside the shooting world once they had been given the facts were either indifferent or against the ban. The ban affected approx 50,000 handgun owners, out of a total population of about 2 million gunowners.

My reference to a reduction in gun related crime was to emphasise that the ban had not achieved anything, but that statistics had been used to try and show otherwise. (One of the little wheezes used was including incidents of children shooting at pets with airguns in the pre ban data and not always in the after ban data).

It is true that the conservative government was in power, but please do not forget that it was at a time when there was a general election coming up and they were very low in the polls. The whole matter became a political issue When the Labour party announced that if they were elected they would impose a ban. The two parties then started to try and outdo each other in their proposals.

If you are interested in more detail please e-mail me and I will either raid my archives or put you in touch with some of the pressure groups involved and with which incidently I am still working.

[Saffs]

Great response, Milu.
Very interesting too. I was surprised the Conservative Government were so behind it and instigated so much. I think they still support it too? I think ultimately, as really not that many people in the UK had hand guns, it was quite easy to implement and most people didn't see the difference, or cared, maybe? I know gun crime in the UK is said to be caused by the illegal importation of handguns, in defense of the ban.
I grew up in the UK and I'd never really seen a gun before coming to the US, funnily. Email me some stuff, Milu - Email
And thanks for the good, well written, response....

[Dave951M]

Maybe this is note is more in keeping with the thoughts of us "beer and pretzels" types but-- having been carjacked, robbed, shot 5 times and left for dead-- it will be a ZERO DEGREE Kelvin day in hades before anyone can stop me from owning a firearm. I am a law abiding citizen, but when liberal whack job petty tyrants attempt to subvert my Constitution freedoms for control over my life, the gloves come off. (We did it twice as a nation with King George.) The criminal who plugged me (causing some permanent disability) had a long list of priors, should have been doing hard time, and had skated mainly on the largess of liberal judges who felt sorry for his poor upbringing. The judge who presided over my case was a "hanging judge" hence, this guy got 40 years without parole. He won't rob and shoot anyone else for quite a while.

We can debate just who should have guns ad nauseum, but one fact still remains- dead criminals do not commit any more crimes. Figures lie and liars figure, I don't believe for one nanosecond that anyone who applies intelligence over emotion, who has ever been as close to the problem as I have, would advocate any type of ban, Sara Brady notwithstanding. While my wife doesn't like guns, she still thinks that banning them is a very bad idea. This whole debate is only a symptom of a much deeper erosion of the notion of personal responsibility in society, that personal actions carry little or no consequence, that a person's lack of emotional control should be tolerated and even accommodated by others. The fallacy that follows is that the government should be allowed to protect and care for the individual. (Want some pencil-necked bureaucrat in charge of YOUR life?? Didn't think so.) The arguement that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of an accident or crime of passion is equally specious. Again, YOU are responsible for YOUR actions.

This whole debate is really a control issue. America was founded on the notion that the government rules at the consent of the governed. Registration of guns is only one step down a path to confiscation, making it much harder for the "governed" to change the "governing" if it should become necessary. Am I advocating violent overthrow of the government with this, not hardly, but the Federalist papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence suggests that it is an option if the government becomes too oppressive. At the moment, the battle is fought in the ballot box. If you don't vote, don't gripe.

A parting "shot"- having "seen the elephant" before, I am a peaceful person by nature, but if anyone tries to harm my family or any other innocent person in my presence-- I will resist by any means at hand and make it my mission in life at the time to end their miserable existence if they persist in trying to harm anyone. If I get killed or injured, fine. I will not allow criminals of any stripe to control my life through fear and intimidation nor will I spectate while they do so to others. The time is NOW for all good people to stand against those intent on doing evil.

My $.02 from the soapbox of experience-

Dave

Originally posted by Dave951M

- dead criminals do not commit any more crimes.


I am a peaceful person by nature, but if anyone tries to harm my family or any other innocent person in my presence-- I will resist by any means at hand and make it my mission in life at the time to end their miserable existence if they persist in trying to harm anyone.

My $.02 from the soapbox of experience-

Dave

You raise some good points.

I fully agree on the dead criminal thing. We don't have death punishment here in Denmark, but I wish we had. I think almost 30% of the population shares my view on death punishment.

On the last part I agree too. I'm also peaceful, but I consider self defense a human right and will fight with whatever it takes if a criminal tries to harm me or my loved ones.

The reason I seemed a bit gun hostile earlier is my view on the argument that many US gun owners use. The "we need guns to be able to defend ourselves against the government if it goes out of line" argument.

I know that many americans consider it sacred, but come on... Just because this was sensible 300 years ago it doesn't necessarily have to be sensible today. The US is the world's biggest democracy - do you guys seriously think that it could suddenly turn non democratic? That's just about as likely as the resurrection of the 3rd Reich or Denmark declaring war on Sweden to get the land areas back that we lost in the 17th century.

We need guns so we can defend ourselves against criminal attackers.

[Milu]

Having studied politics and constitution in Europe and the UK I wish I lived in a country that had the American constitution and the rights it codifies. Whilst I don't think it will be necessary I think it is very proper that the necessity to rebel against the government was considered. Not forgetting of course that this was how the USA was founded.

[Dave951M]

The assertion that we don't need to protect ourselves from the government is not supported by historical data in any country, but let's look at the US. The Whiskey Rebellion, government strike-breaking activities in the 30's, even during our War Between the States. In each case, the federal government deployed troops and shot at American civilians. Let's examine the last case. The Lincoln cult would have you believe that, while he may not walk on water, he only sank in to the knees. Real world- he was a politician who suspended the writ of habeus corpus, lied to audiences in speeches (much easier without modern media), and deployed federal troops in NYC to put down the draft riots in 1863 (yes, they did fire live ammo at the civilians.) The Army was called out to break labor strikes in the 30's, and in one case used machine guns on the strikers. There are a number of similar cases in any country. How would you like to have no means of resistance to the Stalin purges, the pogroms, or to the midnight visits after Krystal Nacht? I again make the point that it is most simply a control issue.

I have heard some libs holding forth the "nobility in vicitmization" and to "let the authorities deal with it." That's okay except the authorities in this country are an ex post facto type of organization. I like the ounce of prevention much better than the ton of cure (if the hurts of the crime can ever be cured.)

America does have its faults, but it is still the best place to live imho. We don't do everything perfectly and probably never will, but there isn't anywhere else I would rather live.

Dave

[Saffs]

Originally posted by Dave951M

America does have its faults, but it is still the best place to live imho. We don't do everything perfectly and probably never will, but there isn't anywhere else I would rather live.

Dave

Just curious, Dave - and not being confrontational. Have you lived quite a few places in the World to reach that decision?
Where's best to live is an interesting question for me

[Dave951M]

Saffs- in a non-confrontational spirit, here's my reply.

If you look at my profile, one of my interests is playing soccer. I have played "football" for nearly thirty years, long before it was cool over here. Because of that, I have been up close and personal to a great number of foreign nationals from just about every continent and a great number of countries. Discussing their home country and social customs are just a couple of things I have enjoyed before and after locking shins and ankles for 90 on the pitch. It does seem that the vast majority concensus is that, America is a great place to live (many didn't want to go back for various reasons), we have some "odd" customs (but admittedly, theirs look odd to us), many have opted to become Americans, there are many more opportunities for "social" advancement here (want to live under a caste system?), and we are much more open about our culture. No, I haven't lived in any other country, but having interacted with a large number of people from other countries, I think I have a pretty good handle on the issue. There are good things about every country (Pollyanna apologies), even Afghanistan, but I think we have far more in the plus column than about any other place. That said, I also am a bit of a history buff and read quite a bit. Given one iota of chance, I'd be on the plane to visit the rest of the world, but still retain my US citizenship.

Would I live under any other system of government? Not hardly, having already experienced levels of freedom many only could dream of. If our system is so flawed, why do we have such a problem with immigration? This is the same system that has allowed free enterprise to create the job glut that attracts immigrants, both legal and otherwise. It has allowed us to be ostensibly the only remaining super-power. It has allowed us to be an economic powerhouse. If our culture is so wrong, why do people from the world over want a part of it? We do seem self preoccupied and vapid, but as one asian general put it- we are the sleeping giant that you don't want to mess with.

I'm afraid that in general, I am a rather laize-faire type of person, until someone tries to exert control over my life. That is why I have a major problem with other systems of government.

In a non-confrontational manner might I inquire as to why you live here? What's wrong with the UK? Are the taxes a bit oppressive or the economy a bit tight? Can't hack the ECU or is the island slowly sinking because of the "Chunnel?" Then again, most of the countries in the "western" sphere of influence are experiencing immigration problems. Not being mean spirited, just a bit of needling

Dave

[Saffs]

Thanks for the response, Dave.
Work has brought me to the US - the nature of my job has required a lot of traveling and working in different Countries. Now I'm US based for a while and even got a 911 here that will go back to the UK one day. The US is a central place for my work, along with the UK. I've lots of friends here now, too, and I like it. The UK is great also. To be honest the cost of living is similar, if not more expensive for me in the US. Medical insurance is a killer for me here being self employed. I'm also stunned at the cost and bureaucracy around car ownership and sales tax on used cars! However, in the UK we've gas at $7 or so. And I hate having to carry ID here - in the UK you don't have to have any even when you drive. However, you wouldn't be able to have a handgun if you were in the UK, and there's often CCTV is UK City centres to supposedly protect against street crime and terrorism - some might find that an invasion of privacy. The UK has problems just like anywhere else. And please don't interpret any anti-US sentiment from me, I'm happy to be here.
At the end of the day it becomes much of a muchness to my mind, it's all heading the same way. The gun thing isn't an issue for me personally - although goodness knows what I'd think if I had an experience like yours.
Friends, health, and positive things in one's life; and the basic freedom we enjoy in both the US, UK and mainland Europe et al are what's important as well as equal opportunities for all. These are all great places. I'm happy that I've been able to absorb and experience it.
Thanks for the for the good post.