For Those Who Loved & Hated

[Since1982]

Of course, having no guns at all, and having zero people killed, would that be an option?

Passing laws against private ownership of guns, (at least in the Continental United States) is against the constitution. Taking guns away from people that would offer them up, would only make those people unable to defend themselves from criminals(who would think taking guns away from Joe Public would be open season for them) More education on how to use guns productively is needed, plus laws on what KIND of guns could be owned by the private section are needed. No Joe Blow in his home "needs" a fully automatic or semi automatic Mac 10 or Uzi. A simple "one in the pipe and 15 in the clip" pistol should be plenty of home defense for anyone in any neighborhood.

[Sarongman]

Iain contrasts a disciplined and self controlled society with an indisciplined, selfish and aggressive one,and then, by inference, lumps me in with the likes of Charles Manson. A most offensive statement! Also, to say that guns are purely designed to kill people, is not only an emotive statement but also one that shows an ignorance of the many uses they are put to in the sporting field.

First, do we admit to being a society of out of control brats, throw in the towel and ban guns, therefore punishing the innocent and having negligible effect on the guilty or, do we bite the bullet and look into the ills of society? The harder question of trying to turn society around would, surely, be the more effective in the long run.

My heart went out to the parents of that 11 year old boy who was shot, but, he was shot with an illegally held handgun of which there are a greatly increasing number in the nastier youth culture and the criminal underbelly of England DESPITE Blair's blanket handgun ban. It is also a fact that, since the English ban on handguns, the British "Bobby"now, in some of the rougher areas, as a matter of course is armed with a sidearm on the beat and is drilled in it's use. Remember when a truncheon was all they needed to keep the peace?

When I was in the U.S. twenty five years ago, I went to Dixie Gun Works in Union City, Tennessee and was privileged meet the late Turner Kirkland, the founder. A gentler Southern Gentleman, (ex scout leader and history buff) you could not have met. Also, people in gun clubs, whatever discipline they follow, are generally quiet, gentle and unassuming people, many of whom are almost pacifist in their thinking.

I very much doubt that The U.K. will field an Olympic pistol team at the Beijing Olympics unless it is a handpicked services team. This is in line with some third world dictatorship. If the whole world has to go to "brat camp" then so be it. Let us wake up to what we are becoming as a society; greedy, selfish and just plain nasty.

Also let's remember, the same rationale that paints gun enthusiasts as evilly inclined rednecks is no different to that employed against us skirt wearers who, in the minds of some detractors, are perverts and fetishist deviants.

[iain]

I stand by my statement, because the assault rifles and sniper rifles, rapid fire pistols and magnums are not designed for sport at all. Nor are the "dum dum" bullets which make an exit hole the size of a coffee table in someone's back. Nor are the smaller weapons which are designed to be hidden, later giving someone a nasty surprise.

Of course I don't deny the fact that some manufacturers are charming southern gentlemen or that some enthusiasts of shooting are harmless and pleasant people. There are the same types in all walks of life -- I know of a nuclear weapons expert who is as charming a person as you could hope to meet. But the larger picture is lost on him; that is my point. I am not attacking individuals, because most individuals also miss the larger context. I am attacking the kind of thinking that allows weapons of death to circulate freely.

These weapons are explosive devices designed specifically to kill or main human beings. The fact that some people might aim them at targets (often in the shape of a faceless human being) for fun, to see how close they can get with their aim, or for an adrenaline kick is of absolutely no significance. If it were so important as a pure sport, the bullets would not be metal and the guns would not need to use explosives to fire them at such tremendous speeds or carry a magazine full of spare bullets.

Like cigarettes, which, after the first evidence that they caused cancer, took 45 years to only partially ban, guns will one day be seen as something society can --very easily -- do without. Of course guns don't cause deaths, people do -- but that's just a sleight of hand argument. You may as well smirk and say cigarettes don't kill people until they're lit up, and therefore they can be safely made available to one and all.

When the manufacture of weapons of death is outlawed -- perhaps 200 years from now -- when war and crime between humans is traced to its causes and something is done about it apart from the wringing of hands --when born psychopaths can be detected early in childhood and something effective done about their condition and the causes behind it -- then have all the guns you want, in a society mentally fit to use guns as sport.

But by then, people will not see any point or amusement in it, any more than we would now gleefully use ancient medieval torture instruments on dummies for sport. We would instead be grateful, as we are now, of the divide of centuries standing between us and those less informed times.

[Sarongman]

Iain, your points are well put and, in some ways, maybe, we are not too far apart in our thinking. I think our mindsets are probably dictated by our histories. Britain and Europe have, for quite a few millennia, been "civilised" (I put that in parentheses for obvious reasons). In the settled world of Europe, spears, swords, bows culminating in the long bow and crossbow and finally guns, were used principally to kill and maim people in the name of tribal/national self aggrandisement. Bearing this history in mind, it is quite understandable that a distaste bearing on positive aversion towards "weaponry" is the norm in England and Europe. In towns and settled areas, slaughter of domestic animals was carried out for meat since Roman times at least, so we are insulated from the realities of the commercial meat trade

It has been a long time since our protein intake depended on hunting and killing game. Now we go to the butcher and are totally insulated from the brutality of the abbatoirs that provide the meat. Australia and America had isolated settlers, often miles from civilisation who had to shoot to put meat on the table and therefore guns were regarded as tools and also as a recreational item, this carries over, albeit more dilutedly in the suburbs. I think, this had something to do with our respective mindsets. I only hope that any aversion we may attain isn't precipitated by the pain that brought it about in Europe!

We, here in Australia, still need the tools for controlling feral animals. ( Mostly brought here by misguided homesick English settlers.) I heard a report that Australia has an estimated twenty five million feral pigs (increasing exponentially!) causing havoc, and those numbers have skyrocketed since the Howard gun ban. As I write, I can see three rabbits busily eating just outside. Must get the calicivirus baits. We can't introduce a virus for pigs as they are close as dammit to domestic pigs, and the industry would be devastated. We've only just got Equine influenzain Australia and now the whole horse industry is in havoc, so germ warfare is almost unthinkable.

I wonder, though, if that lizard brain that sometimes takes over, causing totally irrational behaviour will ever be eliminated. Maybe so, but looking at society, I think 200 years is too short a time frame. Jesus and the Buddha have shown the way of enlightenment; we have just got to GET IT. Guns in museums? only when we are all christed or enlightened.

[Departed Member]

First, do we admit to being a society of out of control brats, throw in the towel and ban guns, therefore punishing the innocent and having negligible effect on the guilty or, do we bite the bullet and look into the ills of society? The harder question of trying to turn society around would, surely, be the more effective in the long run.

My heart went out to the parents of that 11 year old boy who was shot, but, he was shot with an illegally held handgun of which there are a greatly increasing number in the nastier youth culture and the criminal underbelly of England DESPITE Blair's blanket handgun ban. It is also a fact that, since the English ban on handguns, the British "Bobby"now, in some of the rougher areas, as a matter of course is armed with a sidearm on the beat and is drilled in it's use. Remember when a truncheon was all they needed to keep the peace?

Gun crime in the UK has escalated since the "Ban". Whilst many 'souvenirs', etc., were handed in by law-abiding citizens, did the criminal (or, more to the point, potential criminal) hand in theirs? In a short answer, "NO!" The recent "Knife Amnesty" has seen a similar (worse?) outbreak of attacks, and sadly, killings. These "Bans", however laudible to the civilised elements of society, actually have the effect of encouraging their illegal use. The more something is controlled, the more 'desirable' it appears to become to possess that 'something'.

[ziggy_encaoua]

here are my thoughts on the subject Of Britain's amazingly dumb gun laws

To see the full journal entry follow this link http://www.thedeviantlibertarian.net...September_17th

Any state which disarms the people is a state to be very worried about. But even if the tyrannical state argument seems a bit paranoid in relation to why individuals should have to own guns the self defense argument isn’t. In Britain an individual isn’t even allowed to carry a knife on their person for self defense. So what are you meant to do if you get attacked? Oh yes of course call the police, well firstly whilst you getting beaten to death you don’t have a chance to call the police, secondly if you do manage to call the police they might be able to respond in time. Recently it was announced that the police were to be issued with taser guns. How about issuing the police with magic dust so that when they arrive on the scene & you’ve been beaten to death that they can sprinkle it & make everything okay.

So the police are going to be issued with taser guns but are private citizens allowed to own taser guns? Dumb question of course not & just by advocating that it should be legal for private citizens to arm themselves the majority of people in Britain think you’re some sort of sick wacko. Yes the Dunblane Massacre was a horrific tragedy but it doesn’t mean that every gun owner is a complete nut but the anti gun lobby has done a good job to spin it that’s the case.

Of course the anti gun lobby say if guns were easily available then there would be more crime. There’s a one word answer to that…..Switzerland. The Swiss are the most armed nation in the world, it’s a country were you can walk of the street into any gun shop & with a valid ID buy an Uzi. Yet with such liberal gun laws there’s very little crime. But of course gun lobby looks across the pond & babbles on about the crime rate in the US. Why not babble on about the crime rate in Canada a country which has proportionately just as high gun ownership as the US? It wouldn’t be that the crime rate is even lower then Britain. Taking the US as a whole is actually a distortion being as each state has differing restrictions on gun ownership & the states with the most liberal gun laws such as New Hampshire & Texas have the lowest crime rates. Here’s a fact which the anti gun lobby can’t deny report after report has stated that gun crime has gone up even with ever stricter anti gun laws.

Whether gun laws are stricter or more liberal there will always be crime but if gun laws more liberal then innocent people will be able to adequately defend themselves against criminals because whether or not guns are illegal criminals don’t obey the law hence that’s why they’re criminals duh!

Wow managed to get thorough that rant without saying that its people that kill people not guns. Well it’s the truth because here’s a fact an undisputed historical fact….people were killing people before the first gun was invented. Here’s another undisputed fact people don’t need a gun to kill one another. Yeah sure somebody has killed another with use of a soft toy…jeez better ban soft toys.

What the most hypocritical thing about the gun issue in Britain is that these New Labour fuckers say guns are evil but they don’t mind using them in Iraq. Yes the government is all in favour of using guns when it suits their own ends & it should be noted they use them criminally such as Iraq.

Its like vegetarians in favour of abortion.

[Sarongman]

To add to that, if you injure a trespasser, armed or not, in Australia, he has the right to sue you for all you have, and would possibly succeed.

Dunblane may have been the work of a sicko, but there are a lot of very suspicious unanswered questions hanging over the Port Arthur massacre. Yes, the perpetrator did plead guilty, but he has the I.Q. of a 10 year old, did strenuously deny doing so, and denied any knowlege of the event until his counsel was sacked and a high powered "psychologist" worked on him. Tasmania, the least crime racked state, just weeks previously, bought a mortuary ambulance capable of carrying 16 bodies and sold it the year after the event. The killer was, according to a survivor from a Special Weapons background, an accomplished anti terrorist soldier. After pleading guilty, the man was not taken back to the scene of the crime to go over what he did ( which is standard police procedure) The list goes on. I for one am VERY suspicious.

[ziggy_encaoua]

At last people are starting to support Ron Paul, the thinking man's George Bush.

You think Ron's nut well meet Alex Jones who really is nuts

http://www.infowars.com/

[Peter v]

Hallo you guys,
Guns are lethal weapons. That is what they were invented for.
If they are not there, people cannot fall victim to the bullet. Whether intentially or by accident.

Used with care they are great fun for target shooting. (round targets)
Single shot rifles are excellent for that.
Revolvers and pistols is more difficult with that respect.
Even when target shooting it remains a deadly weapon ( classification) but used correctly on the range, it gives pleasure without having others endangered.

For those who enjoy hunting, with care and consideration to the animal population, and who don't just kill everything that lives, taking and consuming their kill, not killing more than can be reasonably consumed, then hunting with rifles can also be enjoyable. But still with a danger aspect. But not directly with regards to killing people.

A gun ban? To prevent accidents. Not to prevent people being able to defend themselves.
Accidents like children playing with loaded guns, or when aggrivated, grabbing the gun that is always loaded and in reach, the bullet being faster than you thinking, o damn it, I 'm angry but It wasn't my intention to REALLY kill you. It is of course too late.

If you cannot grab a gun (to play with) or when aggrivated, you cannot shoot others.

Guns lay dormant, but deadly, just like land mines, until touched by people. And it is when people lose controle a gun is activated as a deadly weapon.

In an ideal situation, If there is a moment that you need to defend yourself, and you are able to / have enough time to put yourself in a suitable safe position and can shoot (only) the bad person, no innocent bystanders, and not have your lethal weapon taken from you and even used against you by the threatener then it is of course good to have a gun loaded and cocked ready to fire in hand's reach.

If you THINK you are threatend ( burglery) you grab your gun, ...and shoot the pizza boy or the boyfriend of your daughter by mistake?

Walking around in a life jacket may save you from drowning. Of course that is not dangerous to others.

The problem with guns is that when people reach a moment when they willingly or in a moment of madness want to "Kill" ( Possibly sometimes not really wanting to end a life, but to have all the power at that moment ) have a gun at hand, they may use it to kill...you.

That is of course what the idea of a gun ban is about, not having a gun at such moments. Not to stop people being able to defend themselves, with whatever suitable weapons.

Having guns lying about everywhere makes it easy for "bad" people to steal one.

Criminals don't hand in their guns, never have. Never will.

I'm affraid the US is stuck with an overdose of potential killing weapons. Unfortunately that is back to the wild west.
I also don't think every body is dirty harry and having a gun on your person is not per definition safer. To defend yourself you must have an ideal situation. A loaded gun on you at all times, be faster than the other, in a position to be able to shoot, and kill or suitably stop the other before he gets you. Also you must be able to resist a normal "don't want to hurt another person intentially" feeling.

If there is shooting in the shop where you are in, who will you shoot to save yourself?

One person sees someone with a gun, thinks he will pull it, and overreacts and soots the other. The shooter who just killed someone/ It may be a FBI agent or policeman undercover. or the criminal, or another innocent gun carrying citizen. He then will see you with a gun, and think you are a "bad"guy too...........So all the people in the big supermarket kill each other, thinking each was a gunman.

The idea of being ABLE to defend yourself is allright, It's the whole picture that is blurry.

In the past I have been very angry at some people, and if I had a gun they possibly would be dead now. ( So luckily for ME that I don't have a gun.

Of course many people take great care with their guns and keep them under lock and key, only shoot at the gun range. No problem. But who is to say what happens with the rest of the millions of guns lying about?:?

Public awareness of gun related accidents and how to prevent them is one of the things that comes with legislation that restricts gun ownership. And that isn't a bad thing.

I can only say that I hope never to be involved in any gun related incident. not as a victim and certainly not as a shooter.

Keep cool, enjoy range target shooting and hunting (in moderation).

Peter v.