The lunatic logic of gun control.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Well if they think owning a gun and using it makes them more manly then that's their opinion and it's up for debate

Good for them if they enjoy it

originally posted by: honested3

originally posted by: Jamie1
There is no moral authority or justification for ninny bureaucrats to forbid me from using a gun to protect myself from a thug who has a gun and wants to kill me.

What savage and barbaric sentiment from someone who sees to treat the symptom not the cause. Maybe we need to look at the 'criminals' who want to kill you and see what caused them to get to that place before the rest of you 'innocent' gun owning psychopaths fulfill the murderous fantasies you all wait each day for.

The real concern is the people who believe in no gun control, that is true lunacy. Guns should not be allowed into our society at all, they leave only a trail of blood masked in patriotism.

I know I'm late to the game on this thread, but is this response sincere, or satire? If the former, it's woefully ignorant--and ironically angry and hateful, coming from someone with the symbol of a promise of peace for their avatar.

If it's satire, then it's a good one.

Either way, I can assure you that my guns have not ever left "a trail of blood masked in patriotism" any more than my kitchen knives has gone on murderous rampages, nor do I have any murderous fantasies each day. In fact, I carry my pistol nearly every day, and I dread EVER having to fire it in the direction of another living creature, ESPECIALLY a human being. But I'll tell you what, if it comes down to my life or yours, you will lose. So, just don't try and take mine, and we're good.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well if they think owning a gun and using it makes them more manly then that's their opinion and it's up for debate

Good for them if they enjoy it

I don't think that it is "more manly" but they find the fear of an inanimate object in their fellow Brits a bit irrational.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Lol at us fearing guns,hmmmmmm

They like guns and that's cool but most people honestly don't care

There is no fear there!

I could say they need guns because there too weak to defend themselves but considering they are your mates I'm sure they have served in the armed services so can handle situations unarmed-like a typical English gentleman will do

Used a hand gun near LAX airport after a long flight and a few GnTs and it was fun,but on return to Blighty I never had the urge to do again

It's cool,we all have hobbies and if target practice is one of those then good as it gets you off the couch and breathing in fresh air

originally posted by: hutch622
The gun control debate in America is pretty much a waste of time . Lets say that owning a gun without a need to do so (farmers etc) was outlawed . Only the good honest citizens would hand them back . Gang bangers , bank robbers , murderers etc aren't going to hand theirs back . Australia has limitations on guns , and especially self loading guns . This has worked well for us , but in Americas case the amount of guns out there would be impossible to recover . Sadly the reason for not instigating gun control is because you have no gun control .

Well, for starters, farmers do NEED firearms if for no other reason to keep predatory animals away from any livestock, poultry, pets, family members, etc. It would seem that you do not know many farmers nor the many reasons that they many need a firearm (not to mention many enjoy hunting for their own food, as well).

Second, there is nothing sad about not having gun control (although, that is a fallacy--we do have some forms of gun control, just not outright bans on widely available and oft necessary types of firearms). You claim that the gun control in Australia has worked well for you--and, maybe for the most part, it has--but when you look at just homicides alone per 100,000 world wide, the US ranks 111th out of 218, at 4.7/100,000. Now, take that as a percentage, and we have an intential homicide (murder) rate of 0.0047% of our population is murdered. While yours lies at 0.0011% of your population that is murdered, at that low of a rate, it's hardly a number that allows one nation to boast while the other has a reputation based realistically on hyperbole rather than an objective review of statistics.

But a lot of those comparisons are pointless--here is a good video to watch. It's a bit over 20 minutes, but it really does address how well your gun-control measures have actually worked in Australia when reviewed objectively to trends and stats from years directly prior and after.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Lol at us fearing guns,hmmmmmm

They like guns and that's cool but most people honestly don't care

There is no fear there!

I could say they need guns because there too weak to defend themselves but considering they are your mates I'm sure they have served in the armed services so can handle situations unarmed-like a typical English gentleman will do

Used a hand gun near LAX airport after a long flight and a few GnTs and it was fun,but on return to Blighty I never had the urge to do again

It's cool,we all have hobbies and if target practice is one of those then good as it gets you off the couch and breathing in fresh air

Yep. All of my Brit friends are veterans who I've met on active duty. Nice blokes. I'm a bit of an anglophile, so I visit quite often--you have a very rich history.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: NavyDoc
I could say they need guns because there too weak to defend themselves

That's amusing. It's comments like this that show a high level of ignorance as to the "why" behind owning firearms for self-defense purposes.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Perhaps you need to read my post again . I said farmers need guns . Your rate of murder is 4 times ours . Granted my last sentence is a bit hard to understand . Gotta love beer eh .

Its strange to see so many willing to talk about gun laws, however if the law should ever change will they still heed the law at all?

Will they give up thier guns if they find themselves in a gun free zone?

Or will they become criminals who do not adhere to the law?

Lets say that owning a gun without a need to do so (farmers etc) was outlawed .

I didn't misread anything--that comment includes farmers specifically in your comment about owning a gun without a need to. If that's not what you meant, then you misspoke.

As concerning the homicide rates, if you take the same criteria that the UK uses to report their statistics (only homicides where there was an arrest or conviction) and apply that to our rates, ours basically decreases by half. The UK statistics are a smoke-and-mirrors way of reporting homicides--if you want to proudly hand your hat on that, that's fine, but the reality is that the rates would increase by about 12% if the UK reported ALL of them. While that may be a relatively small number, it calls attention to the complexities involved in comparing different violent crime stats of different countries--the criteria of reporting is not the same, therefore direct comparisons shouldn't be made unless you have the knowledge of those differences and you apply them accordingly.

So, even when compensating for the way the UK reports, the US would be at a 0.0023%-ish rate of homicide in our population. Like I said before--that's not exactly the horrendous statistic that other countries make it out to be.

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know), we rank 111th in the world for homicide rates, which puts us right at the 51 percentile mark, surrounded by many countries that have nearly identical rates. So, while I'm not trying to deflect or pretend that our homicide rate shouldn't be better, what about those other 110 countries that are worse than us? Hell, at the top of the list is Honduras, with a 90.4/100,000 homicide rate. The US is 4.7/100,000. The UK's (if reported the same way as ours) would be about 1.2/100,000. I'll take being four times your rate in lieu of living in a country that is 75.3 times your rate, like Honduras. If you objectively compare, the alarmist reactions to America's murder rates equate to misplaced ideological rantings, for the most part.

Wikia reply to: hutch622

a reply to: NavyDoc

Ugh, Moms Demand Action. That whole group sickens me, (along with Everytown) especially when you look into the links of who provides financial support, etc, to said groups.

Watts of Moms Demand Action: Good guy ‘has never’ stopped bad guy with gun (VIDEO)

During the conversation, the co-host of the show Victor Blackwell challenged Watts on whether there was some truth to the National Rifle Association’s maxim that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

“Is there an example in school shootings or a mall shooting or these public facilities, where that has been wrong? Where a bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way or by a person other than a law enforcement officer with a gun or by killing himself?” asked Blackwell.

“This has never happened,” replied Watts. “Data shows it doesn’t happen.”

[...]

Given that Watts misspoke or at least did not fully articulate her group’s position, Guns.com reached out to Moms Demand Action for clarification on their stance with respect to defensive gun use and the impact that carry rights have on crime rates.

“What we mean to say is that these events are extremely rare — and independent research backs us up: the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of research on firearms and violent crime and found ‘no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime,’ ” said Erika Soto Lamb, the group’s communications director, in an email to Guns.com.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Its strange to see so many willing to talk about gun laws, however if the law should ever change will they still heed the law at all?

Will they give up thier guns if they find themselves in a gun free zone?

Or will they become criminals who do not adhere to the law?

Your premise is flawed.

There will never be "gun free zones."

The government agents will still have guns.

It is carefully thought out that the common majority should have guns controlled away from them so the most powerful 1% can have all the guns to offer other their protection, love and care as they envision is fitting.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

You sound very much like a person that will make a great subject to be ruled over.

a reply to: fartsmeller46

It's not lunatic, it's very logical if u want a slave nation.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

We are prepared with other methods that you wouldn't be farmilliar with called EXPERTS AT WARFARE.
Nothing you are capable of understanding however.
Not be trained ,deployed or apparenlty literate in history.

a reply to: FormOfTheLordwww.bob-owens.com...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7

Looking over the post and I dont see this happening at all. In my opinion Americans wont give up thier jobs and become fugitives, not ever going to happen. Of course some may but how would they be able to survive on the run, I just dont see it as a viable option unless entire states rebeled. Not going to happen. . . .

I kinda think people just say things without thinking them through, the media would turn on such people and just call them terrorists, the vast majority of Americans would most likely give up thier weapons in a martial law scenario.

It most likely wouldnt be a gun ban, just gun control on the form of martial law in your state or area, the national guard would begin taking guns door to door and without information of whats really happening in your area most would most likely be ignorant of it.

So in a martial law scenario no new gun laws need to be passed, they can begin taking them away.
I doubt it will be something that will be all at once kind of thing, martial law here, then martial law there, pretty soon martial law everywhere.

Anyways bringing a gun to a drone fight wont end well for the guys with guns. . . .

I dont support the taking of peoples guns, but I feel it may be a reality we may have to face in the near future at some point. Some would give thier guns up while others wouldnt. My family and friends all have guns, I dont forsee them fighting in some revolt to keep them if the national guard ever asks for thier weapons, nope not at all, but I do think alot of people may be heading for the hills so to say, getting out of the cities where violence may be taking place.

However if the national guard is asking for your weapon in a martial law scenario and is just outside our doors, I think most would give the weapons up.

The people dont seem organized enough to win a revolt, and seem to be easily led by the latest fear based news on TV.
People have never stood up for anything they werent told to stand for, and have dropped the ball on various issues, far too many to even try to begin listing, so if they let everything else slide I doubt they will pick this one issue to finally take a stand.

a reply to: FormOfTheLordwww.bob-oweLet... me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Perhaps i did not word that to well . Like i said . Ya gotta love beer .

According to the CDC their were 11,068 firearms homicides in the US in 2011. Considering the total number of firearms owned by people in the US, that number statistically insignificant.

In that same year there were about twice that number in automobile fatalities. Does this mean the government should take away automobiles?

If the government wanted to declare marshal law over firearms ownership. A revolt with small arms would not be much of a problem for the military.