Uechi-Ryu.com

Don, thank you. CNN was in fact showing last night that an Ak-47 with 30 round mags has almost the same firepower capacity as a fully auto one and therefore it has no place in our society and in the streets because it poses a danger to police and citizens alike.

Like I have written before on my forum. Discussions on the right to bear arms are at best pointless because the two camps shall forever remain divided by a huge chasm of differing opinions.

What it boils down to, in spite of all the well intentioned arguments, is this: if you are suddenly cut off from the pack about to be savagely attacked, maimed or killed__ would you rather have an efficient personal weapon or just rely on your bare hands? All those argument outlined here would not do a bit of good when that moment comes for some of us. And gun ownership, if not gun use, seems to lessen the chance of such events taking place.

Here is a question: You are rabidly antigun. You have a friend who owns and carries a gun. You , your armed frirnd, and your respective wives go out to theater and late dinner downtown this Saturday night. On the way to your parked car on a side street, a Van’s door slides open suddenly, four punks jump out with knives, grab your wives throwing them in the Van, then tell you two to get in to watch them rape your wives. They also promise you will be next to be sodomized while your wives are made to watch as they are forced to have oral sex.

At that point would you want your friend to pull his gun and try to save the day? What if he doesn’t? Would you hold it against him assuming you four survive the ordeal after losing your manhood in front of your wives? Would your wives still be married to you two in six months? Would you be borrowing your friend’s gun in six months so you could commit suicide?

I know this can be rationalized in a hundred ways, but it is down to very basic primal instincts that I argue. The rest of the arguments leave me disinterested. Reminds me of what Clint Eastwood said once “ I believe in gun control. If there is a gun around I want control of it”

BTW..The above scenario really happened.

quote
"I am very offended by your comments about our military. Wars are tough business and the faster the goal is accomplished the better. The recent war in Iraq was fast and successful. Saddam and his regime killed thousands of innocents and these bodies are being dug up by the thousands daily. Do you not read the paper? The US and its coalition partners have saved countless thousands of lives by deposing Saddam."

I'm sorry Rich ......what offends you?. the comments or the fact that you killed our troops, and you did ....wars are a tough business, and we don't need our allies killing our troops....what are the US going to do about it?.....there is some poor bloody women with a new born baby to look after because her man is gone. I think that the US taxpayer should foot the bill....they killed him. How would you feel if we killed your troops through incompetance ( and it's not the first time)We lost more men to the US than to Iraq.
And Don......you sad little man, you even think that sharpening a knife is rocket science...you little mcsh*t( there ,maybe I'll get banned too )....every time that you loose an argument you call for somebody to be banned or call them a troll or mentally ill( you don't fool anybody)
Go swivel dude

you live in a " Trigger Happy" society.

Now I'm not saying that all American Gun owners are irresponsible.....but face it you have a p*ss poor record


US taxpayer should foot the bill....they killed him.

How would you feel if we killed your troops through incompetance


you sad little man


you little mcsh*t


Go swivel dude
-------------------------
what exactly do comments like these add to the debate?

If you can not control yourself maybe you should get the boot.

Laird

Jorvik, reread your recent posts and ask yourself if they really make any sense to you or forward any arguments. In the last one, it even looks like you ARE trying to get banned, which I suspect may be your way of proving that you're being censored or something, which admittedly is far easier than doing the kind of research you'd have to do to compete with the educated gun owners who post here. Anyway, what's the point? Those of you who dislike the noise, it'd probably get quieter without an audience.

Thank you Ian... an educated voice of reason.

Regards, Rich

Ian you're quite right I did not argue reasonably

Rich Apologies ......I did overstep the mark. I think the reason that I got annoyed was that I am not rabidly against guns.....But, Folks are responding to me as though I am. I like to look at both sides of an argument, and sometimes I will present or try to at least, that of the " other side".
It is sooo easy to kill with a gun, it's clean, sanitized....bang,bang your dead. And those 9,000 folks that got killed were all victims. We've heard talk on other forums about the chemical cocktail or how some really expert Uechi guys would rather fight a traditional Black belt than a " streetfighter",
.....but nobody equates that to firearms.....(Don't forget I get to look at real life incidents everyday).......little bad guy gets dissed by big Barman, who he could never go toe to toe with, goes home gets a sawndown shotgun, sneakes up behind and blows the guys head off .....the perpetrators of crimes are not huge bodybuilders, they are just nasty......worse than you can ever imagine, firearms make it so easy for them....if you can't fight them in a streetfight, what on earth makes you think that a couple of hours on the shooting range will qualify you to face one of these killers?
( As to other issues, once again I apologise.....especially to Panther
coz it's his forum and maybe I did say too much.......but then again it wouldn't be the " Tough Issues" forum it would be the " Easy Issues" forum if we all agreed.

jorvik wrote:
Rich Apologies...I did overstep the mark. I think the reason that I got annoyed was that I am not rabidly against guns...But, Folks are responding to me as though I am. I like to look at both sides of an argument, and sometimes I will present or try to at least, that of the " other side".

Jorvik,

You seem fairly antigun to me because you parrot the same, tired old lies, distortions and arguments that have been the lexicon of the American Left for going on three decades now with regard to the private ownership of firearms.

I don't think that you can say a lot of what you have said and then defend your own personal views by saying, "I am not rabidly against guns." That's like Rosie O'Donnell claiming she is, "not rabidly against guns." She just thinks her family should be protected by an armed bodyguard but believes no one outside of governmental or celebrity status should have that degree of safety.

See the connection? You cannot have it both ways.

There is nothing wrong with presenting another side to an argument. I think most of us have heard them all before but no one can say that I honestly don't post something intelligent and interesting when I do decide to post on this topic. I take my time and I try to use logic and reason. You, on the other hand, are like so many and start going down the emotional road. I can play that as well but I usually don't. I'm going to address the rest of what you said with an argument that is both logical and emotionally charged.

It is sooo easy to kill with a gun, it's clean, sanitized...bang,bang your dead.

You see, that is simply not true. It is so easy to merely shoot a firearm, it is not easy to do so in an accurate manner. Truth be told, in my opinion which I base on facts and personal experience, I believe if what you said were true, we would have a higher mortality rate for gunshot wounds. As it stands now, to put it bluntly, most criminals can't shoot for sh*t.

There is also very little that is "clean" or "sanitized" about killing another Human Unit with a firearm. To be sure, some people just issue a trickle of blood. But I have to ask myself, "How much experience does this person Jorvik possess when he says some of these things?"

The truth is, Jorvik, you bleed like stink when you get shot. The only time that usually does not happen is when you get killed instantly or within seconds because your heart stops pumping.

High powered rifle and shotgun wounds are explosive depending on round used, target/location on body and distance from target.

And those 9,000 folks that got killed were all victims.

Here is some emotion and logic, hand in hand.

Remember reading what an antigun Baltimore County, Maryland Police Chief said once, I believe that would have been Chief Behan.

"Between 1,800 and 2,200 criminals are killed by armed citizens every year in this country, that's more than Police kill. That's not necessarily a good thing."

It's especially not too damned good if you are a criminal and you make your living victimizing innocent people! It's also not too damned good if you are an antigun Police Chief! It's also not good if you believe criminals should be coddled!

Let's take the low number and say...that a few hundred of those people would have survived had they not been armed at the time. Let's say that 1,500 were in such a situation that had they not responded with lethal force, they would be dead now.

You don't care about those people that are NOT victims because they killed their attacker, is that it Jorvik?

The Chief was speaking about dead criminals killed by regular citizens. How many more were shot and wounded and the innocent person saved their life by doing so? I would imagine that the number would easily be tripled or quadrupled.

Professor Lott of, "More guns, less crime" fame, he has done a study that places the number of times firearms being used by innocent people...to be vastly larger, I don't remember the exact number but well over a million. The reason for that is, the mere sight of a firearm in a determined person's hands, the person that was thought in an instant to be easy pickings, the table has turned and the criminal flees, looking for easier pickings elsewhere...you know, he's looking for someone quite like yourself. Not to be cruel or nasty, it's just a natural fact.

What about those people Jorvik? What happens if firearms were in fact banned, the criminals would still have the damned things and they would absolutely go crazy, they would be emboldened by their new found safety of having unarmed victims to prey on.

This is why you have a tendency to piss people like me off in the extreme.

You won't listen to reason and then you come back with one of your famously confusing posts that also displays biting insults with mild praise to cover up for the fact you just insulted everyone!

To go further with the number of "victims" we have, please also understand that I am not someone who thinks that any death is a tragedy, oh no. Quite the contrary, I think some of these people, probably a majority of them in fact, that are being cut down in the "prime of their life" are not tragedies at all. Most of the fatalities can be directly attributed to the drug trade and while their untimely demise might make a liberal cry, in a way, I rejoice if for no other reason, every dirtbag knocked off by another dirtbag, that is one more that won't be released to prey on someone else, one less to prey on my family. The antigun movement here goes to great pains to play up the innocent people who are injured, maimed or killed and they do have my sympathy, as long as they were innocent, but only a hopeless optimist or perhaps shameful naive would believe that most of these people are not really "victims" in the way we usually use the word.

We've heard talk on other forums about the chemical cocktail or how some really expert Uechi guys would rather fight a traditional Black belt than a "streetfighter"

...but nobody equates that to firearms...

What planet are you on? You see, Jorvik, this is why I consider you a troll, you babble or bait, which is it? Our very own Van Canna has went to great lengths to warn people about psychotics or people chemically-fueled and I find it almost perfectly ludicrous that you have missed the great topics over in his forum with regard to these issues. I can only guess that since there is no mention of President Bush, Saddam Hussein, Friendly Fire, Iraq or Oil that these things do not stick when thrown at the dartboard that is your brain.

By the way, you just made the argument for using firearms all that much stronger! Do you have any ability to reason whatsoever? Do you think about what you type at all?

(Don't forget I get to look at real life incidents everyday)...little bad guy gets dissed by big Barman, who he could never go toe to toe with, goes home gets a sawndown shotgun, sneakes up behind and blows the guys head off...the perpetrators of crimes are not huge bodybuilders, they are just nasty...

If you see this "every day," how can you say gun control is "working" where you live, which is in Great Britain?

Are you lying just to look like some sort of Subject Matter Expert on the issue, or, if you see it every day, how can you claim gun control works there? You cited a specific thing Jorvik, so which is it?

By the way, we eat greater quantities of beef here and it is of a higher quality than you apparently have. We have quite a few musclebound boneheads out whacking people out. Your comment is a reminder that not every attacker is some sort of bodybuilder but that is more of a geographic thing.

Over here, across the pond, we have weightrooms in prisons, pal. We have some serious criminals here.

...worse than you can ever imagine, firearms make it so easy for them...if you can't fight them in a streetfight, what on earth makes you think that a couple of hours on the shooting range will qualify you to face one of these killers?

Jorvik, I don't know what to say to you at this point. First you go to great lengths to repeat over and over and over and over again that guns make killing so damned easy and then you, in all of your wisdom and firearms acumen, come back and say that we cannot possibly utilize one of these ultra deadly killing devices to save ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are not supposed to insult people in this forum!

I cannot help myself at this point!

You are either a lying troll who likes to start flame wars with such stupid arguments or you really are that damned stupid! You contradict yourself constantly! Which is it?

Furthermore, it is YOU that is only capping range time at "a couple of hours on a shooting range." Again, you attempt to stack the deck in your favor constantly, there is no honest debate with you. Most people (average) who actually go through the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit here have spent more time shooting than your average criminal has.

I have been watching. And gun control is certainly a "tough" and emotional issue. I think that boundaries have been pushed and even crossed. I have contemplated how I wanted to respond.

Kudos to Ian for ratcheting things down. Also, re-reading the thread, it is self-evident that the pro-gunners are better informed and make their case far better than the gun-control advocates.

Why are pro-gun, pro-freedom advocates in the U.S. so adamant and passionate about their freedoms, liberties and rights? Because the truth behind the purpose of the opposition is clear "from the horse's mouth" so to speak.

" 'Assault weapons'... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Director of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), March 1989 - former Head of the National Coalition to ban Handguns (which eventually became HCI and is now called the "Brady Campaign")

The Truth (for anyone who actually knows anything about firearms) is that fully-automatic machine guns used by the military have long been called "assault rifles". A term that has been used since the early parts of the 20th Century and originally coined by a German manufacturer of military arms. In memos addressing the methods to be used for banning semi-automatic rifles, Josh Sugarmann (quoted above) coined the term "assault weapon"! What exactly is an "assault weapon"? In truth, that term means whatever Congress says it means! And currently, that is any semi-automatic rifle (or shotgun) which has more than two (of five) features that make it resemble a fully-automatic military-style assault rifle!

Now on to another recent misdirection of the truth. In England, after the ban on private ownership of guns, crime rates have soared. UK subjects (you are not a "citizen" of the UK, you are a "subject" of the crown... and therefore can be ordered to obey whatever arbitrary laws are passed) fearful of growing crime rates after the ban on gun ownership, regardless of the UK legal belief that self-defense isn't a right, began carrying knives to defend themselves. Shortly thereafter a campaign began to vilify knives! And, the last I heard, the former "gun-ban" organizations are now pushing for "knife bans". (An interesting side query as previously asked in this thread and yet to be answered by our anti-gun cohorts across the pond: If there is a complete ban on the private ownership of guns in England and Japan, why do they report any homocides by firearms?) The very fact that crime rates in Great Britain and Austrailia have soared since those countries passed bans on private firearms should indicate the truth of John Lott's research and the validity of the title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime.

And finally, while some will undoubtedly "play the race card", the fact is that U.S. statistics from the Justice Department Bureau of Statistics show that for the various ethnic groups in the U.S. compared to those same ethnic groups in other nations, across the board, the U.S. groups are each less violent with lower crime rates than their counterparts in other nations. It is only by using overall statistics which skew the numbers of the U.S. compared to other, more homogeneous societies that the U.S. can (in some instances) be made to appear as a more violent nation. A prime example is a comparison of the U.S. to South Africa.

Now, comes jorvik with another scenerio. I like scenerios. There is one major flaw in jorvik's scenerio/argument just presented. If jorvik is discussing England (where he resides), the argument fails because it is completely illegal for that nasty little perp (or anyone else who is a private subject of the crown for that matter) to even own or possess a firearm! (An extreme few minor exceptions, but the firearms must be held at a secure facility, only used at that facility, and may not be taken from that heavily regulated, secured facility.) On the other hand, if he is discussing the U.S., it is evident to every knowledgable person (especially firearms owners) that his scenerio fails because "sawndown shotguns" have been heavily regulated in the U.S. since 1934. (Yet another indication that one should do their homework before debating.) Additionally, the other 20,000+ firearms laws in the U.S. create a situation which greatly reduces the chances of such a scenerio from occuring. (Side note: Such instances do occur... in both nations. While that may be somewhat expected by the anti-gunner logic for the U.S., it is completely unexpected by any logic for the U.K.! I again ask: If there is a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms in England, why do they have any firearm homocides at all?!?)

Finally, no one has been banned or hampered from this forum in any way. I have considered and contemplated such action, but to prevent cries of censorship it has been avoided. Everyone has said their piece. Some aren't eloquent, some are. However, I will (yet again) warn that the personal attacks are strictly verboten!!! (In other words, STOP doing it! Failure to heed these continuous warnings will cause my already almost non-existent patience to vanish completely.

I don't mind someone "playing devil's advocate" on any position. However, on every debate that I've witnessed on these forums about gun-control, the pro-gun, pro-freedom side has proved it's case. And generally done so with less vitriol and more facts, sources, cites, and statistics than the opposition.

And I will also expand on one point that Don just posted. The fact is that most people in the U.S. who have gone to the trouble of getting any firearms permit, especially a concealed carry permit, on average have more "range time" than the average Law Enforcement Officer! And I am forced to agree with Don (after re-reading the thread), that jorvik has contradicted himself on a number of points OR has (as Don puts it) "stacked the deck" in his favor. Don is quite correct. You can't have it both ways. Please make your case in a reasonable articulable fashion using verifiable sources, cites and statistics. (Recall that we will not accept HCI, VPC, Kellerman, Bellesiles or any other anti-gun group or person as a source or cite. Simply because those people have all been thoroughly debunked and discredited already and there is no reason to waste time to re-hash those points.

No more B.S. emotionalism used as a debating tactic.

Now, I'm back to "watching mode"...

I've read this thread and the ongoing "debate?" for the last couple of weeks.

With all due respect to Panther, the only things that are clear to me now are:

1) How hot people on either side can get in talking about guns
2) How statistics and stories can be made to support any side of the issue
3) That nothing I say or that anyone else will say will change the mind of those with opposing views.

That #3 is why I haven't said anything till now. VAN, I think you pointed that out at the top of page 5 before adding another story.

I don't expect to sway anyone or do much other than express my own view. I hope, though, that people can consider me as a person when throwing around their insulting terms in the future.

No argument..just a list of sorts.

I'm an American woman that was taught to shoot a gun better than the boys when I was a kid and hasn't touched one in 15 yrs. I'm one of those "liberals" who is in favor of gun-control that people keep insulting and calling stupid. I probably make Canadian Liberals look conservative by comparison. I'm also intelligent.... intelligent enough to know that I would have been verbally "jumped" the moment I tried to support my view here, regardless of how well I did so. I think some of you are actually the ones that told me the best self-defense was avoidance. I took your advice and didn't wade into a hopeless fight. (Maybe this post is just some of that high-risk behavior after all?)

As of now, I don't feel I will ever own a gun. I don't like them.

I'm glad my father has them though, since I know a handgun is my dad and mom's only means of protection when they travel. His is licensed. My dad is responsible.

My dad's mom though has had a gun pulled on her by a belligerent nutcase that is supposed to be her significant other. She has Alzheimer's and doesn't understand guns anymore. He has been hooked on mega pain killers and in and out of drug treatment for it for years now. He is fiercely pro-gun to the point of owning automatic weapons that have to be kept in separated segments and ammo for them in yet a different location. He kept them all together. Guns around the two of them are dangerous. He was licensed, too. The cops took the guns away. He shouldn't have been allowed to keep them in the first place.

I don't believe everyone should be allowed to own guns.

I don't think everyone should be allowed to drive cars either. Why do we license drivers? Well, I think its because not everyone is competent to drive. It takes at least a minimum of coordination and reason to do so. Cars driven by irresponsible, incompetent, or just plain crazy (for whatever reason) drivers can end up killing lots of people. It's not the car but the driver who is a danger to the world. I don't think some people should have licenses and I'm glad that there are laws and law enforcement officers to try and keep those kinds of people from behind the wheel, both through licensing before and legal action afterwards. I'm glad cars lock so not just anyone can get it and drive. For most people, those who are reasonable and responsible, getting a driver's license isn't much of a problem. Neither is making sure the cars are "road worthy" and getting them licensed.

I don't see why guns should be any different. A reasonable and responsible sane gun owner should have no difficulty getting a license and waiting for a "cooling off" period before getting their weapon. There should be reasonable waivers for that wait if legitimate and immediate need is shown. I know there are in my state. Those licenses, I think, should be reviewed regularly...for those who become dangerous and incompetent. Just like driver's licenses.

I've heard many arguments from all sides. They don't matter to me. The Constitutional argument doesn't convince me. The interpretation of the "right to bear arms" has been under debate for two centuries and I don't expect any definitive answer will ever be determined. The whole thing is just too vague and/or manipulatable...like statistics, hypothetical analogies, and various stories. Arguments can be made to support all but the most ludicrous interpretations. What is ludicrous is probably debatable too.

I try to think things out for myself. Other people making their case don't mean much in the end if it doesn't make sense to me.

I follow a quote from Buddha on most things... "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

I still haven't figured out (or heard) a justification that I agree with for anyone other than law enforcement and military to own assault riffles or assault weapons, however you name them.

Y'all are pretty cool, likeable people and generally nice too, regardless of your views. I can live with the differences of opinion. It's America, well for many of us. We're entitled to disagree.

LeAnn

We got some common ground. We don't want criminals and crazies to carry guns. We want sane, law abiding people to be allowed to do so however, so they can help protect themselves and their families from the criminals and crazies.

Panther
The only reason that I have come into this debate ( if it can be called that), is because of the spurious lies and nonsense spoken about my Country's laws....by people who do not understand them, have no legal background do not even reside in my country.......I am extremely disappointed that you are one of these people.
quote
"Now on to another recent misdirection of the truth. In England, after the ban on private ownership of guns, crime rates have soared. UK subjects (you are not a "citizen" of the UK, you are a "subject" of the crown... and therefore can be ordered to obey whatever arbitrary laws are passed) fearful of growing crime rates after the ban on gun ownership, regardless of the UK legal belief that self-defense isn't a right, began carrying knives to defend themselves. Shortly thereafter a campaign began to vilify knives ! And, the last I heard, the former "gun-ban" organizations are now pushing for "knife bans". ( An interesting side query as previously asked in this thread and yet to be answered by our anti-gun cohorts across the pond : If there is a complete ban on the private ownership of guns in England and Japan, why do they report any homocides by firearms?) The very fact that crime rates in Great Britain and Austrailia have soared since those countries passed bans on private firearms should indicate the truth of John Lott's research and the validity of the title of his book, More Guns, "

All guns are not illegal in the UK, check out.
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/index.htm
You also seem to imply that people carried guns prior to this for self defence, or owned them for that purpose, they didn't.

AS to knives, it has always been illegal to carry anything that could be used as a weapon, even a hammer....if it is going to be used as a weapon.
check out
http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html
Nobody in England has the " Right" to carry a knife for self protection.
Don Why have you got a picture of a swiss army knife and a kubotan on your site alongside the story about self defence?.....you seem to be implying that a swiss army knife is Illegal here in the UK...it isn't.
Panther
As to crime in the UK soaring, what sort of crime do you mean? certainly credit card crime is on the increase......street crime is on the decline because of special units that have been set up to deal with it ..one of which I work for, I would think I have my finger a bit closer to the pulse than you
Self Defence is perfectly legal here, but naturally every case is looked at on it's merits...for example you are not allowed to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. However it would be legal to kill somebody in self defence, you would just have to demonstrate that you had used reasonable force.
I have said before that guns are not, and have never been an issue here.......at best shooting was a minority sport, that was always looked upon with suspicion by the majority.
By the way the first things that were banned were Kalashnikovs and pump action shotguns after the " Hungerford massacre"( Assault weapons?)
There are things that are wrong with our legal system. But that is for the people of the UK to sort out. Certainly, if you want to imply that the UK is a more violent place than the US...the figures would prove you a liar....whichever figures you use yours or Moore's.

Le Haggard wrote:
1) How hot people on either side can get in talking about guns
2) How statistics and stories can be made to support any side of the issue
3) That nothing I say or that anyone else will say will change the mind of those with opposing views.

I get hot about it because I don't particularly care for people who whine about "all the victims" of "violence" and they want to create a whole new group of victims with their misguided views. Australia, if nothing else, has proven this will happen. That is a fact, but facts do not matter to some folks.

Of course stats and stories can be twisted and bent.

Part three is a certainty.

I don't expect to sway anyone or do much other than express my own view. I hope, though, that people can consider me as a person when throwing around their insulting terms in the future.

I consider Jorvik a person. I consider Jorvik to be someone who debates in a dishonest and deliberately convoluted manner for whatever reason. So, it does not much matter what you say at this point as to me regarding you as a person, you are, you just might be one that I vehemently disagree with.

As of now, I don't feel I will ever own a gun. I don't like them.

I'm glad my father has them though, since I know a handgun is my dad and mom's only means of protection when they travel. His is licensed. My dad is responsible.

If you do not want to own a firearm, that is entirely your business. I would ask you a kind favor to not lobby others with nonsense that would disarm me and my family just as I would never lobby to take your parent's means of protection which you obviously place some sort of value on and can be seen in your own words.

If you do not like guns, that is fine as well.

My dad's mom though has had a gun pulled on her by a belligerent nutcase that is supposed to be her significant other. She has Alzheimer's and doesn't understand guns anymore. He has been hooked on mega pain killers and in and out of drug treatment for it for years now.

He is/was violating federal law and can be arrested if he has filled out a form saying that he is not a user of narcotics when in fact he is. If he has been in a rehab for it, I would think that something is wrong.

If you go to the Dentist's Office to have a tooth pulled and they give you percocet, you don't have to give up your firearms. If you have cancer and you are going to be on narcotics for a very long time, up to your death, you don't have to give them up.

If you are a fruitbat who had need for them at one time, the narcotics, and you are now off of your rocker and you are addicted to them and "in and out of rehab" for it, that points to it not being the same problem.

He is fiercely pro-gun to the point of owning automatic weapons that have to be kept in separated segments and ammo for them in yet a different location. He kept them all together. Guns around the two of them are dangerous. He was licensed, too. The cops took the guns away. He shouldn't have been allowed to keep them in the first place.

Stop the presses. To whom have you been speaking, LeAnn?

I believe it is a federal requirement for a dealer in automatic weapons to remove the bolt from the weapon and then everything gets locked in a safe, etc. If he was not a dealer in them, I don't think he had to keep them separate.

This has nothing to do with his stance on firearms! You are demonizing people, that's why your side tends to draw withering fire from my side.

Furthermore, it is probably better if he is relieved of those machines if he has a drug problem, as to your claim that he should have never been able to have them, that is only your opinion. There are three sides to every story, your side, his side and then there is the truth. It might be that he should have never been allowed to own a fork, but that is another story.

I don't believe everyone should be allowed to own guns.

I don't believe that everyone should be allowed to drive a car either, but I don't lobby for and support tighter controls on them. But that is a segue into your next interesting point!

I don't think everyone should be allowed to drive cars either.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to see the age requirement jump to 18 where it should be or anything else that would be safer or "constructive."

More on that in a bit.

Why do we license drivers?

The State Licenses drivers primarily to make money. The same reason they make you wear a seatbelt in certain States now. The thought of someone in a State Legislature actually concerning themselves with someone's face hitting the dash is amusing. In some of these States, they tell us that they care about our head cracking into the windshield and they give child molesters early release from prison.

And then they wonder why I consider them disingenuous. I'm supposed to believe these cretins worry about my safety when they pass a seat belt law but not when they release an armed robber or murderer. Then, people like yourself don't understand people like me.

Well, I think its because not everyone is competent to drive. It takes at least a minimum of coordination and reason to do so. Cars driven by irresponsible, incompetent, or just plain crazy (for whatever reason) drivers can end up killing lots of people. It's not the car but the driver who is a danger to the world. I don't think some people should have licenses and I'm glad that there are laws and law enforcement officers to try and keep those kinds of people from behind the wheel, both through licensing before and legal action afterwards.

All that licensing and registration that the State makes all that money on, does that prevent someone from buying and using the car they bought, or stealing one, from using it in the commission of an armed robbery, rape or murder?

I'll answer for you, no it does not.

They show High School students gory movies during Driver's Education Courses. They still drive like fools and kill themselves and others.

Licensing and registration is simply just another revenue resource and a way to make people jump through more hoops, etc. It's not going to change anything when it comes to firearms.

Driver's Licenses don't stop car thieves, armed robbers, rapists or murderers...or, just plain stupid people. You've already shot down your own argument.

I don't even have to revert back to the Constitutional argument on that one although Panther might find it necessary to do so for the record.

We have 50,000+ highway deaths here annually, I don't see where your argument holds water when it comes to firearms and that is not even considering EVERY TIME a vehicle is used in the commission of a crime, stolen, borrowed or bought, it must be in the millions annually.

I'm glad cars lock so not just anyone can get it and drive. For most people, those who are reasonable and responsible, getting a driver's license isn't much of a problem. Neither is making sure the cars are "road worthy" and getting them licensed.

Yeah, car locks keep children out of vehicles and having a locking ignition does same and that's about it in the real world, LeAnn.

Licensing schemes for firearms ownership will just be one more way to hold the Citizen upside down and shake them for pocket change and it will be one more thing that they can keep adding things to so they can administratively ban firearms.

I don't see why guns should be any different.

Just showed you a few reasons why, I'm sure I have not changed your mind, I'm not trying to. It's written for forum lurkers who have not decided, not you.

They can decide for themselves who has presented the better argument.

A reasonable and responsible sane gun owner should have no difficulty getting a license and waiting for a "cooling off" period before getting their weapon.

That would be true except I cannot trust politicians with my Civil Rights because they have lied to me so many times in the past as to what their real intentions are. When they speak before an antigun organization, they say they are using these things as stepping stones, the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak.

Then they come and tell other people that they don't really want to ban firearms and they put forth arguments that are, on the face of them, "reasonable" as yours is.

They lie their ass off.

As for a waiting period. I think their value is overblown personally. I read this pamphlet from a Lawyer's Organization that stated a woman should exit the kitchen immediately because most women who are killed in domestic violence are killed in the kitchen, by a knife found in the same place.

In the heat of the moment, they don't need to go get a firearm to do the deed.

But, I already have a couple firearms, if they make me wait a few days, I don't care, I just think they are one more scheme to jump through and don't have much of an effect on crime or anything else.

There should be reasonable waivers for that wait if legitimate and immediate need is shown. I know there are in my state. Those licenses, I think, should be reviewed regularly...for those who become dangerous and incompetent. Just like driver's licenses.

That's funny. I never knew that any State had a review board when you went to renew your Driver's License to test your competency. You go in and pay your $25 bones or whatever, get another picture taken and have to deal with a snotty State Employee. Oh, yeah, you get your eyes checked too. So, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I think if you have epilepsy, you have to notify them so a Doctor who is a Specialist can review your case.

I've heard many arguments from all sides. They don't matter to me.

That's obvious.

The Constitutional argument doesn't convince me.

You're not the first liberal to look at the Bill of Rights as a buffet table of items that you can either choose to agree with or casually disregard. You will not be the last, either.

The interpretation of the "right to bear arms" has been under debate for two centuries and I don't expect any definitive answer will ever be determined.

Really? Two centuries? Let's see, it started in earnest in 1934 with the National Firearms Act of the same year. Before that, it was basically a non-issue, unlike the revisionists of today, people back then knew what the deal was.

The whole thing is just too vague and/or manipulatable...like statistics, hypothetical analogies, and various stories. Arguments can be made to support all but the most ludicrous interpretations. What is ludicrous is probably debatable too.

Have you ever read any of the writings of Madison, Jefferson or Tench Coxe? Perhaps things would be much more clear to you. There is nothing vague about this issue or that Amendment. It's crystal clear, especially when you take the time to do a little research, but I would not expect someone who simply does not like firearms to do that.

I try to think things out for myself. Other people making their case don't mean much in the end if it doesn't make sense to me.

OK! That is the best argument for organized ignorance I have ever heard, but OK.

I follow a quote from Buddha on most things... "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

And that is one of the greatest arguments for organized, personal delusions I have ever heard. My Son is convinced that he can do any number of things that can injure him. His ability to reason is in question because he is almost seven years old.

Lucky for me, he is not a Buddhist or I would be in trouble, so would he.

I still haven't figured out (or heard) a justification that I agree with for anyone other than law enforcement and military to own assault riffles or assault weapons, however you name them.

Rawanda/Rwanda, however it is spelled. I don't have to run and get machinegunned, nor do I have to stand still and be hacked to death with a machete.

Y'all are pretty cool, likeable people and generally nice too, regardless of your views. I can live with the differences of opinion. It's America, well for many of us. We're entitled to disagree.

LeAnn

You don't strike me as being malicious. Just very wrong or undereducated in your views. Perhaps your dislike of guns has caused a prejudice that does not allow you to see the truth and has clouded your "common sense" that you so eloquently states in the Buddhist comment, eh?

Now, on to Mr. Heartburn!

jorvik wrote:
The only reason that I have come into this debate ( if it can be called that), is because of the spurious lies and nonsense spoken about my Country's laws...

We'll see in a minute buddy.

...by people who do not understand them, have no legal background do not even reside in my country...I am extremely disappointed that you are one of these people.

Why should we not judge your country's laws when you judge ours? Who do you think you are? You and your country is above questioning and yet you come in here and run your mouth, mindless yammering about our country's laws and you don't live here either. There, we're even if nothing else.

What hubris.

Next abomination.

All guns are not illegal in the UK, check out.http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/index.htm

You are correct, all guns are not illegal, but you have to be incredibly wealthy to afford to jump through all of the hoops in order to have one and they are so severely restricted as to be useless.

You also seem to imply that people carried guns prior to this for self defence, or owned them for that purpose, they didn't.

Uh, yes they did, but that was over 100 years ago for the most part. That is when it was more common.

AS to knives, it has always been illegal to carry anything that could be used as a weapon, even a hammer....if it is going to be used as a weapon.

There have been offensive weapons laws passed recently that would prosecute an INNOCENT person for using ANYTHING in DEFENSE. PERIOD.

Nobody in England has the " Right" to carry a knife for self protection.

No British Subject has a right to carry ANYTHING for Self-defense, everything is considered an "offensive weapon" even when carried for Self-defense or used in that act. You are not even allowed to carry O.C. Pepper Spray there because the criminal has a right to victimize you and you have no right to stop them.

Proof of my statement?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/ ... ory=403287

The story has now been removed and now available through subscription only I believe.

Here are some great tidbits.

From the article:

Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'
By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
05 May 2003

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.

You can have the place where you live.

Isn't that great? A rapist in Great Britain has equal rights to the woman he wants to rape.

Lovely place. Burglars, armed robbers and murderers...what a wonderful way of thinking!

Don,

Why have you got a picture of a swiss army knife and a kubotan on your site alongside the story about self defence?.....you seem to be implying that a swiss army knife is Illegal here in the UK...it isn't.

Perhaps if you would learn to tell the truth for a change you would have said that was part of a warning about CARRYING KNIVES IN BRITAIN.

You're just a liar, that's why I think you should be banned from the forum. I never said Swiss Army Knives were illegal in Britain. I warned people that using one to defend their own life would land them in prison with the same sorts of people they wanted to defend against.

Nice place you have there.

You are not allowed to carry a simple pocketknife with "no good reason."

If you should be lucky enough to use it to save your own life, you will be arrested, period.

As to crime in the UK soaring, what sort of crime do you mean? certainly credit card crime is on the increase......street crime is on the decline because of special units that have been set up to deal with it ..one of which I work for, I would think I have my finger a bit closer to the pulse than you...

Now, everything becomes crystal clear.

If street crime, especially that involving guns, is on the decline, then you would admit to lying about seeing gun injuries and deaths "ever day" as you said above?

Self Defence is perfectly legal here, but naturally every case is looked at on it's merits...for example you are not allowed to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. However it would be legal to kill somebody in self defence, you would just have to demonstrate that you had used reasonable force.

You have a right to defend yourself with your bare hands. In a world of weapons that will exist no matter what law you pass because criminals do not obey laws to begin with, the right is empty.

You are not allowed to use an equalizer which means the big eat the little there, the armed eat the unarmed.

Nice place, again, you can have it, we don't want it. You don't give a damn about the victims you create there.

I cannot find the one article I had where British Police were sending out greeting cards or Christmas cards to criminals warning them that they were being watched and to behave themselves.

Given that you have now stated that you are a part of "policing" Britain, that now makes perfect sense as to how it happened.

jorvik wrote:Panther
The only reason that I have come into this debate ( if it can be called that), is because of the spurious lies and nonsense spoken about my Country's laws....by people who do not understand them, have no legal background do not even reside in my country.......I am extremely disappointed that you are one of these people.
quote
"Now on to another recent misdirection of the truth. In England, after the ban on private ownership of guns, crime rates have soared. UK subjects (you are not a "citizen" of the UK, you are a "subject" of the crown... and therefore can be ordered to obey whatever arbitrary laws are passed) fearful of growing crime rates after the ban on gun ownership, regardless of the UK legal belief that self-defense isn't a right, began carrying knives to defend themselves. Shortly thereafter a campaign began to vilify knives ! And, the last I heard, the former "gun-ban" organizations are now pushing for "knife bans". ( An interesting side query as previously asked in this thread and yet to be answered by our anti-gun cohorts across the pond : If there is a complete ban on the private ownership of guns in England and Japan, why do they report any homocides by firearms?) The very fact that crime rates in Great Britain and Austrailia have soared since those countries passed bans on private firearms should indicate the truth of John Lott's research and the validity of the title of his book, More Guns, "
All guns are not illegal in the UK, check out.
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/index.htm
You also seem to imply that people carried guns prior to this for self defence, or owned them for that purpose, they didn't.

AS to knives, it has always been illegal to carry anything that could be used as a weapon, even a hammer....if it is going to be used as a weapon.
check out
http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html
Nobody in England has the " Right" to carry a knife for self protection.
Don Why have you got a picture of a swiss army knife and a kubotan on your site alongside the story about self defence?.....you seem to be implying that a swiss army knife is Illegal here in the UK...it isn't.
Panther
As to crime in the UK soaring, what sort of crime do you mean? certainly credit card crime is on the increase......street crime is on the decline because of special units that have been set up to deal with it ..one of which I work for, I would think I have my finger a bit closer to the pulse than you
Self Defence is perfectly legal here, but naturally every case is looked at on it's merits...for example you are not allowed to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. However it would be legal to kill somebody in self defence, you would just have to demonstrate that you had used reasonable force.
I have said before that guns are not, and have never been an issue here.......at best shooting was a minority sport, that was always looked upon with suspicion by the majority.
By the way the first things that were banned were Kalashnikovs and pump action shotguns after the " Hungerford massacre"( Assault weapons?)
There are things that are wrong with our legal system. But that is for the people of the UK to sort out. Certainly, if you want to imply that the UK is a more violent place than the US...the figures would prove you a liar....whichever figures you use yours or Moore's.

Also PantherQuote
"Now, comes jorvik with another scenerio. I like scenerios. There is one major flaw in jorvik's scenerio/argument just presented. If jorvik is discussing England (where he resides), the argument fails because it is completely illegal for that nasty little perp ( or anyone else who is a private subject of the crown for that matter ) to even own or possess a firearm! (An extreme few minor exceptions, "I really didn't understand this .......if you use the same logic regarding Columbine. then that couldn't have happened either because teenagers would be breaking the law if they had guns. Maybe in the US there are no criminals who possess illegally held firearms

Le,

Clearly you see this picture all wrong.....Single shot magazine is for the individual deer, automtic rifles, machine gins and assault rifles, whatever you want to call them, are for the herd of deer......

Don,

Talk about the King of obfuscators.....Have you heard the latest from Don folks......

First he decries others for .......

I consider Jorvik to be someone who debates in a dishonest and deliberately convoluted manner for whatever reason.

Then Don moves on to indicate the following as a means of proving his point

In some of these States, they tell us that they care about our head cracking into the windshield and they give child molesters early release from prison.

We are still trying to figure out your logic on this one Don.........I think you sir, are a traitor to your ideals......


ATH

Akil Todd Harvey wrote:
Le,

Clearly you see this picture all wrong.....Single shot magazine is for the individual deer, automtic rifles, machine gins and assault rifles, whatever you want to call them, are for the herd of deer......

Is a machine "gin" an automatic booze dispenser?

I guess if it was about "deer hunting," you would have a point. Unfortunately, it's not and you don't have a point.

Don,

Talk about the King of obfuscators.....Have you heard the latest from Don folks......

First he decries others for .......

"I consider Jorvik to be someone who debates in a dishonest and deliberately convoluted manner for whatever reason." - Don R.

Then Don moves on to indicate the following as a means of proving his point

"In some of these States, they tell us that they care about our head cracking into the windshield and they give child molesters early release from prison." - Don R.

We are still trying to figure out your logic on this one Don.........I think you sir, are a traitor to your ideals......


ATH

I'm sorry, I forgot I still have to talk down to The Romper Room Sect (children) that sometimes inhabits this forum.

It is disingenuous for a Politician to tell me that the law he/she/it passed for my safety is something that is good for me when they do other things that are worse for me. Instead of "disingenuous," let me use a word you can understand.

It is bad for a politician to tell me that they are going to pass a law for my own good and safety, like wearing a seatbelt or a helmet when they release violent human beings from prison constantly and then do their level best to disarm me so I am defenseless against the people they are releasing from prison.

I'm sorry, Mommy might not have told you about prison yet.

It is not nice for adults, "big people, i.e., grown ups," (Legislators, Politicians) to release bad people (criminals) from bad places (prison) and then tell you that you have to wear a seatbelt in your own car for your own good.

The reason they do this has nothing to do with your own personal safety, it has to do with writing you a $25.00 moving violation and it has to do with giving Law Enforcement yet another reason to stop you and search your vehicle (fishing expedition).

Clear it up any? Are The Jetsons on yet Todd?

Your "traitor" comment is transparent, I called you a traitor to your country months ago and stand by it now. Such a spiteful little child...