Posted: 16 Jun 2010, 23:18
Oops, sorry that was a spelling mistake, “bear� instead of “bare�!!! Hang on how can bears be armed in this day and age? Only in fairy tales surely?EB wrote:And what if the bears were armed? The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to arm bears (or something). Never understood that one, but I figured that it was probably something framed by Teddy Roosevelt who wanted to give them a sporting chance.
MadameButterfly wrote:We should destroy all guns cause they just lead to killing.
But to uphold the law we need guns. Or not?
In countries where guns are allowed people get killed.
Most countries where guns are allowed, deaths happen as accidents in own homes.
Or the defendant becomes the hunted down.
Against gunning down in nature, sorry still stand on the foot of allow nature to control nature.
In my eyes guns means killing and I'm against all killing & violence.
If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands, feet, nails, teeth, just like nature indended it to be so..
If ever in my life I'm confronted with a gun, I sure hope that person pulls the trigger before I destroy them.
EB wrote:We don't need guns to uphold the law, per se - for many years Britain's police force was unarmed (except under the most extreme circumstances) - there is an argument to support the view that Britain did not have the same level of armed crime that other countries suffered because criminals knew that it was very unlikely that they would encounter an armed policeman. Even now regular coppers in the UK don't carry, but are able to call on the services of an armed response unit when it is necessary.
And that armed response unit acts accordingly shooting who needs to be shot? Come on we do need guns to uphold the law as per se – in Holland we now have police carrying weapons which wasn’t a few years ago, but with the crime rate in the destruction of public areas & the groups that form to withhold a certain upstand that resorts in violence with hands rather than with guns is just the first blessing in disguise that the police don’t react with guns although their lives are put on the line…
In worse case, when a life is threatened can armed forces be there in time?
Of course, that the law of life, people will die no matter if there are guns or not. Like you say criminals will do what they want no matter what rules they are breaking, and there is proof of this in countries where guns are not used, although those are then brutal killings as then whatever kills comes into play not just the laws or whatever, the state of mind of the indivual committing the law. Any victim in any crime is always at the disadvantage which ever way you look at it…EB wrote:True, where guns are permitted, people are killed. But people are also killed where guns aren't permitted. What we don't seem to be able to get our heads around is the notion that criminals who carry guns with the intent of taking life don't give a damn that the guns are illegal - if anything it plays into their hands: they know that decent law-abiding citizens aren't likely to be armed, so the criminal has an immiediate advantage.
EB wrote:I am reminded of an interview with a Swiss man, shortly after Dunblane. Switzerland has the highest per capita rate of civilian gun ownership, on account of the way in which their military is organised. Every man of serving age must, by law, keep a service weapon and ammunition in his home. The man was asked why, with so many guns so accessible to so many people, Switzerland had one of the lowest rates of armed violence. He looked at the interviewer aghast: "But, if we were being irresponsible with our guns, our neighbours would call the police!" He seemed surprised that anyone would ask the question - "what kind of country do you live in where people wouldn't call the cops if they saw something bad happening?"
Well if any human being in their right mind is feeling threatened one would call the police or not? That’s a case of what the Swiss want in their military so be it… keeping of a service weapon has proven over the years not to be a good thing thanks to all the unfortunate home incidents where a gun in question has lead to the deaths of young children getting their hands on a weapon that has not been looked after within the laws… What is the serving age of these young peeps and do they know the in and out laws of owning this weapon?
Yeah and New York City has been known to have the worst rate everything.. Although I think it matters in which “hood� you live and what your background is…loads of gangsters so of course the criminal level would be higher there, thanks to the drugs and illegal things flowing into the US.EB wrote:People often point to the US as a gun culture, but they fail to differentiate between the laws that different states have on the books. New York City has a horrendous level of armed violence - truly dreadful. Yet it is just about impossible to get a handgun legally there. If you've ever had so much as a traffic ticket you can forget about it. from this we can conclude that the violent crime in NYC is the result of illegal handguns - banning them altogether won't make any difference.
Well look at South Africa in the Apartheid years, followers of Ter Blanche were allowed to commune together and teach their kids at a very young age that if not the white way no way and those kids were give AK-47’s and taught the fighting way of a pure nation or whatever their discriminating method was! In S.A. in outshirts of JHB you will find that in a country where gun laws are allowed, the road-rage is the most violent way living in the country! It’s the one thing when one wakes up there says “god help me live today� without a gun that goes onto those roads! Seriously thinking, thank the heavens in Holland the laws are a no-go! Cause then you would have irritated Dutch people in traffic jams killing each other without mercy!!EB wrote:Compare with Arizona where anyone who is a legal resident of the state, is over 21, and doesn't have a criminal conviction can walk into any gun store, show a state-issued ID, and buy any weapon they choose. We're not just talking handguns here - anything up to and including .50 calibre machine guns. Moreover, you can walk down the street carrying it (so long as it's in plain sight), and if you do an 8-hour CCW course you can carry it concealed. Sure, there are places where you're not allowed to be carrying (post offices, schools, polling stations, places that serve alcohol), but owning and carrying is no problem. It is estimated that 85% of vehicles in the Phoenix metro area are carrying a gun - cab drivers, delivery drivers, soccer moms - in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, there is almost no road-rage and the incidence of violent crime is lower there than in NYC.
Yeah the same laws came into effect in S.A. years ago…..EB wrote:This may also be the result of the state's "21-foot law" - if an assailant is within 21' of you, and you are in fear for your life, you are entitled to shoot him. And so long as you shoot to kill (why would you shoot to maim if your life was threatened?) then the courts generally come down on your side. Would you break into someone's home or vehicle if you knew that there was a better than average chance that you'll come face to face with someone with a gun, and who knows how to use it?
Different states have different laws - the one that comes into play here is the Castle Doctrine. This says that you have the legal right to remain in and defend your home when an intruder enters, and includes the option to use deadly force. Contrast this with NYC's Duty-to-Retreat law, which says that if an assailant enters your home you have the duty to find any means possible to leave the premises.
Look at someone against violence, I will agree with if you come onto my premises uninvited, and try to hurt any of my family, I will attack you and kill you if need be. But again with my own hands and would wait for the police, but if I think it’s a no go, the human instinct of attack will prevail as that is who we are as animals…attack or when at defeat surrender, but by god there will be a fight!
Yes they do! So do the wars the governments need to prevail, so do the mobs that need their reputation, so do the underworld that need their drugs, women and weapons, cause it’s the on-going cycle of this life…. Get off your high horse with cigarettes killing, yes we know that but still you drive your dirty stinky cars & alcohol, the on-going drug in this world that destroys too but the laws protect it… it’s not as black white as you speak of EB, cause those criminals will find means beyond guns if need be, but then that becomes barbaric and something the world rather not talk about…EB wrote:Do guns kill people? Absolutely they do. So do cars, cigarettes, and alcohol. None of them, however, kill of their own volition - they all require human intervention. Will banning guns (or cars, cigarettes, or alcohol) prevent criminals from employing them to commit crime? No.
Instead of knee-jerk legislation we need to have a measured, sensible, reasoned debate about the problem.
And I'll knee-jerk legislation because it's all wrong and new laws should come into tact!