The Truth About Gun Control

Notice how this thread is invaded by people mentioning drugs to derail this thread.

The 2nd is here to protect the 1st!

Molon Labe, come and take them...from my cold dead hands.

The military recently wanted to know how much personal weapons per platoon there were, think they are planning on disarming the military personnel first?

Donny 4 million, I think you are right and you have correctly spotted a pattern. Can we now extrapolate this pattern to how it affects the UK?

A little history first...

1987 Michael Ryan goes shooting in Hungerford killing 18 people before shooting himself.

1996, Thomas Hamilton shocks the nation by murdering 16 school children in Dunblane primary.

1997, Blair comes into power and takes all our guns away from us Brits except a few shotguns in the hands of people who own more than 4 acres of land. (Mainly members of the house of lords anyway)

2005, Police shoot dead an innocent man on the subway thinking he's a terrorist right in front of everybody. (not the first, and not the last time police shoot dead people in this country)

2007, Barrister shoots somebody in London and gets off with it.


......


Britain produces ENOUGH weapons, even apache helicopters under contract. I have never seen such a lethal killing machine as a helicopter with a thermal imaging camera and a machine gun. I think if Britain did a cull of the population, they would disarm us first (already done) and then use apaches to mow us down just like they are in Afghanistan.


I think Britain NEEDED shocking events to happen in order to justify gun control.

The Hungerford massacre seems a bit dubious to me and so does Dunblane. In both cases the building with the most evidence was destroyed preventing a proper investigation, just like 9/11 (Who dunnit? is a nice wildcard for politicians to fill the gap and make whoever they dont like their enemy)

In Hungerford, Ryan "set fire to his own home before shooting loads of people and then shooting himself". How about this for a headliner "The SAS shot dead half of hungerford on orders from the Government as part of a grand scheme to disarm the British Public for in ten years time?" I reckon they were smart enough to set the whole thing up at hungerford, and why did it take the armed response 3 hours to get there? Because it was set up that way.

And Dunblane, poor children died.... enough to make anyone weep a tear and say "yes, I'm giving up my guns now". The scoutmaster did it before shooting himself..... The gym where the murders took place was demolished soon after, again preventing a proper investigation. What if the real killer was still out there?

The fact remains now that the British public are now unarmed. Even CS Gas is an illegal firearm, pepper spray is illegal. We are defenceless sheep in this country. Now they are trying to take away our knives as well and the cops wear stab-vests.

I agree that weapons in the hands of nutcases can result in horrific tragedies such as Dunblane, but what if thats just what the government/papers make you think?

There has been talk of Britain building new prison ships....

British public have no access to firearms of any kind...

Somebody said Britain can't go above 70 million in population...

20 million political dissidents in Russia had their guns taken off them and then were rounded up and exterminated...

Come on people, am I talking sense here?

How are we the people meant to defend ourselves from secret political agendas that involves the clandestine mass murder of the British public?

And the same applies to the rest of the world.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by zaarin]

absolutely, it's our right to own a gun. everyone should know how to use a firearm, even if they don't have one.

Gun Control Advocate Shoots Intruder

Title speaks for itself..

Hypocracy anyone?

[edit on 13/1/10 by countercounterculture]

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
they want my guns they can try and get them- just bring alot of bodybags.
and spork that is what i said and the other i have in my signature- in case you didn't read it

Before or after you soil yourself..

Gotta love these internet tough guys. Just to let you know...these targets WILL be shooting back..not like animals and non moving targets, just because youyr a good shot with those...it will be a lot different when your under fire. Personally I hope you and the other internet tough guys try....that way we don't have to read the same ol' line over n over...you know the one ...JUST COME AND TRY TO TAKE MY GUNS...when your dead and taking your guns...you will look down and say..damn..they did they really did..I wasn't serious.

Hmmm, here's a question for you since it seems your implying that people will have to face American troops if they really want to protect their weapons and their rights to have them; How many members of the U.S. Military are members of the NRA as well? Do you really believe our military would turn on it's own citizens over gun control rights? Speaking as a former Marine and a LIFETIME NRA member who strongly agree's with the OP, I would never have followed such an order as I would have seen it as being an unlawful one which would not only make me a hypocrite but a worthless human being at that. Sorry, I'm pretty sure our military would never fire into our own citizens over gun rights.

reply to post by Donny 4 million



Hmm, this looks like a variation on a classic email as some its topics are discussed here.

Fact check

As soon as I saw the line "I got an email today" I knew it had to be a classic Zombie thread.


Also love some of the information about Switzerland, totally taken out of context but it may be an interesting idea, Citizen soldiers for the win!

If you don't believe in gun control, cool more power to ya, just don't fall for some of the classic junk you find on the internet, it doesn't put you in the best light.


take care

/bow



[edit on 13-1-2010 by Helmkat]

There is a little town in The State of Georgia - Kennasaw (look it up)

"KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house."

Note the "Requires residents to have a gun in the house"......

I have a friend from Kennasaw and she said that if you want to move there you have HAVE to learn to shoot a gun. You HAVE to take firearm classes. You HAVE to have a gun in the house and KNOW HOW TO USE IT.....

Very Very little crime in Kennasaw......hmmm - wonder why?

See how they do things? Its just like they are doing with tobacco,raise the taxes and they will be forced to quit,raise the price on ammo and guns,and they wont be able to afford them. They will keep trying till they get their way,just like when they banned smoking in all public places here in Iowa,the state with little farm towns all over,and many many smokers live here. Its Iowa! who cares! Ever heard of smoking and non smoking sections? Soon,hunters wont be able to afford to hunt,and that means an over population of wildlife with bad genes and diseases. The Dems here in Iowa have contradicted all their so called beliefs.

I think I've recieved that email from one of my chain email happy contact list people.

I think Switzerland is an interesting example of how this really isn't a gun issue at all.

I was fortunate enough to be able to live in Switzerland for two years. I actually became a member of a gun club there and participated in precision 3 position shooting matches. The Swiss do indeed issue SIG-550 variant rifles to all male citizens at 20 years old after they complete basic training for the armed forces. These aren't semi automatic variants either, these are selective fire military grade weapons. Unless its changed everyone had to keep their rifle in working order along with a sealed package of ammunition, the idea being if they were mobilized they had a weapon and enough standby ammo to fight their way to a military position. The swiss also have fallout shelters in every home and office. I think its part of the building code.

The funny thing is the Swiss never seemed to think about gun crime, or crime at all. No one was ever worried about getting mugged on the street, no one cared if there was a guy on a train or something with a rifle. I'm sure some laws have tightened up in the post 9-11 climate, but I doubt it went too far.

The Swiss never seemed scared of each other, their government, or their governemnt of them. Interestingly enough, they also have loose drug laws and other such libertarian concepts like global political neutrality. Hmm. That and they've been a confederated republic since the 1300's.

reply to post by commdogg


Seems like the Swiss have a good way of thinking. "Stick Together" Good plan,maybe we should try that concept.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

I know this for a very very long time. That is why I'm all for the right to bear arms. But I don't want to energize the weapon industries and gun culture too much either. Gun culture produces gun nuts, and I don't like that. Balance is the key.

This is fine. I would also include the emphasis on training.
I was not allowed to handle a weapon until I pasted hunters safety.

Guns kill, so no guns would be my most favourit. But gouverment can't always be trusted, so i kind of agree. In my country, the Netherlands, there's no threath. But who knows..

Sorry I posted without finishing.

Bottom line, don't make laws for the sake of making laws. Laws should be made through a consensus of voters assuming it passes constitutional muster.

Citizens requiring more security through tighter laws from their governemnt achieves nothing. Take responsibility for your own security. Even though there are consequences of breaking a law, compliance is still basically voluntary. Most everyone does, just not the ones the law wants to target. Thats why mass shooters pick schools instead of gun shows.

Laws that aren't feasibly enforceable shouldn't be laws in the first place.

Oh and I read somewhere, remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Weapons are still in military storage from previous wars that can arm every able bodied man in the United States. Part of Selective Service Registration process is to gain a count and location of the mobilization population.

reply to post by commdogg


The police take an average of 20 to 30 min to respond in my area,so i have to be able to be ready to deal with a threat. Anything can happen in 30 min,anything. Like Charlton Heston once said "they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands".

reply to post by CASH69


Theres a million of those.

"I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."

I personally like, "Never pick a fight with an old man. He will probably just shoot you."

Originally posted by commdogg
Sorry I posted without finishing.

Bottom line, don't make laws for the sake of making laws. Laws should be made through a consensus of voters assuming it passes constitutional muster.

Citizens requiring more security through tighter laws from their governemnt achieves nothing. Take responsibility for your own security. Even though there are consequences of breaking a law, compliance is still basically voluntary. Most everyone does, just not the ones the law wants to target. Thats why mass shooters pick schools instead of gun shows.

Laws that aren't feasibly enforceable shouldn't be laws in the first place.

Oh and I read somewhere, remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

This may seem to be off topic but I don't believe it is. I would like to argue the notion that laws are made rather than judicial or legislative discoveries. All made laws are what would be called "positive laws" in that they are inventions with intentions to prevent crimes or damage imagined. All "negative" laws are laws we have discovered to be basic principles of human rights and civil societies.

The Bill of Rights are not made laws but are discoveries that are then legislated and codified into law. "Positive laws" can also be codified into law, but due to their invented nature they are not real laws but merely statutes, codes and ordinances that serve as evidence of law. The major difference between "positive" and "negative" laws is that the former usually need to be explained to people as being for your own good. Of course, if something is for your own good it would be self evident and not need any explaining.

On the other hand, "negative" laws need no explanation. Not one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights need explanation in that no one, or perhaps very few, will ask, why can't Congress legislate against free speech, or the freedom to worship, or the right to peaceably assemble? Even the Second Amendment, and here is why I do not believe this is off topic, few people will ask, why should I have a right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, as it has been pointed out by other posters, there are many that are very vocal about gun control, but they themselves reserve the right to keep and bear arms. They do so, because they need no explanation why they have that right.

Laws that are made are a perversion of law, and the only valid laws are those that serve to protect the rights of individuals, or groups which include governments, which is what makes the Constitution a valid law. Governments do indeed have the right to govern, but are best operated and functioning when the power flows directly from the people. There are many reasons We the People will flow power to a government, among them to provide for a common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the general welfare and most importantly, to establish justice.

Justice is not evident when all other aspects of government are running properly and the rights of the people go un-trampled with no abrogation or derogation of them. It is when these rights get trampled upon, abrogated or derogated that an absence of justice occurs and that is what becomes noticeable. In the event of an absence of justice, all that can be done, is to endeavor to put justice back in. Thus, justice works in a negative sense, in that it can only serve to right the wrongs of injustice.

It is for this reason, that it be held as sacrosanct and imperative that the We the People have the right to keep and bear arms, for if we are not allowed to protect ourselves from any tyrant, whether it be criminals, such as murderers, rapists and thieves, or dictators and usurpers from foreign lands, or even our own government that acts in ways of usurpation's, then there is no justice.

Originally posted by Meesterjojo
Great facts. Truly appreciated.

I think what I love the most is that there are no citations, only random numbers. I mean, sure, anyone could just pop numbers in a sentence and call it fact. And sure, maybe a lot of this is hearsay, but wow, so inspiring.

The way you, and others like you, copy and paste emails and websites here is truly an inspiration as well. Void of thought is the way I prefer to live my life. Angry and in fear for the win!

I'm going out right now to search for some great copypasta to bring back here. I'll be sure it contains no references to where it draws it's 'facts' from (and bonus points for me if I can say 'these facts are published anywhere', right?).

There is no higher calling than to fight fear and ignorance with fear spawned from ignorance.

May whatever God you worship bless you and shine their light upon you.

I did not post this thread to be dishonest in any way. I am heavily into not only self protection but protection of my family. I support gun training and background checks. The facts are ---that where folks are allowed to carry guns in America the gun crime is lower.
If you have reason to think any thing here is untrue--
I would appreciate it if you address it. Please start with a little defense of what you are calling ignorance and fear. I hope you are suffering from neither.
The OP is broken down so you can take on one or all of the issues.
Thanks for the blessing. May your god bless you also.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I think academic journals have less harsh peer review standards than ATS does dude.

I work part time in a uniform shop/pistol range. The other day a young man from Great Britain came in wanting a shooting lesson. He told me he was a cop from London on vacation in the U.S. I know that the cops don't carry guns over there as a rule, but I incorrectly assumed that they were trained to handle them in the event of necessity. Wrong, he told me that he had never picked up a gun in his life. He also explained that cops in the UK are getting shot at an alarming rate and that they won't even issue most officers Tasers!

Brutal. I hate to see gun violence. I hate to see any kind of violence. Nevertheless, in defense of myself, my family, my country, I am prepared.

As for the 2nd Amendment, clearly in the final analysis our liberty is only safe if we the people are willing to fight to protect them, even if the enemy is our government. I hope it does come to that, but here in California it sure feels like things are going in the wrong direction.

Jackel