Do You Believe in Guns?

[clandestino]

Hey Dan, hows things ? hope things are good over in the states at the mo, ...its a nice sunny day down here in London.

Anyway, we've got different fire-arms laws over here. No civilians are permitted to own a hand-gun or firearm of any type (with the exceptions of farmers w/ their shotguns). You are allowed rifles for shooting in designated areas or for sport, but NOT specifically for the purpose of self defence.

The law was brought in a few years back because of an incident in Scotland when a man broke into a school assembly with a hand gun and shot dead several children.

I've got respect for your beliefs and your constitution, but personally I think that guns are offensive, not defensive weapons. As such, I believe that using them CANNOT be deemed as self - defence.

I think that the laws here reflect this position, but I'm no lawyer.

I do recognise that there are plenty of practical situations where my beliefs would get me killed....but on the other side of the coin, I think that more guns = more people getting shot...

I hope that I haven't in any way offended you Dan, if I have, it wasn't my intention ! cheers,
Mark

[WalkerInTheWoods]

I strongly believe that people kill people, not guns. Guns are only a tool. If someone wants to kill another they will reguardless of the tool. Guns like other tools can be dangerous and need to be handled with care and intelligence. I likewise strongly believe that everyone has the right to bare arms. If it were illegel that would just allow criminals to have guns and not the lawful citizens. So why punish those that have been obeying the law? Guns have useful benefits that can range from self defense to sport.

Something that I am interested in is how banning them actually effects life in countries such as the UK. clandestino, and others that live in such countries, have crimes involving guns decreased a lot? Are they still used by criminals? If someone has a shot gun in their house and say several men break into the house, they are not allowed to use the shot gun in their defense? Are people suppose to sit by and let the criminals have their way with the man's wife and children until the police arrive? Just curious how things are over there.

How was the incident in Scotland resolved? If a teacher or principal had a gun they could have quickly removed the threat this man posed instead of having a bunch of people that could do little to stop him.

You hear all the time on the news about how guns are bad and how some man or woman went to a school or park and open fired. The thing is you never hear about the person who was standing by and happen to have a gun and shot this maniac before they could kill everyone there. Most governments and organizations spread this propaganda so people will want to ban guns. People without guns have less power and are thus easier to control.

[clandestino]

Hi, the situation was resolved by the suicide of the killer...after he had killed several innocent school children.

I agree, there are never any articles in the news about how lives have been saved by armed citizens defending themselves...I guess there is less appeal to the public, so the newspapers don't run them.

By the way, handguns have ALWAYS been banned in the UK....sorry I didn't make that clear, but im not really an authority on the topic. The use of handguns for sport was banned after the incident in Scotland....you used to be able to use them at firing ranges, but you were not allowed to carry them at all. Now, any civilian carrying a handgun for any reason will be arrested.

So, banning their use in sports didn't bring about a reduction in gun crimes, it was a measure intended to make it more difficult for looneys to get hold of the weapons by making their possession illegal.

I'm not sure how the gun crime rate compares between the UK and US, but i think that there are less incidents over here .

[jilola]

Strangly most of the killing over here are committee up close and personal. The most typical toll sused is the knife or an axe. Guns and such are only third or fourth.
The problem with guns is that they make killing so easy and convenient.

And why is it that the mass killers don't start the killing spree by shooting themselves first. That would solve a lot of problems http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_wink.gif" border=0>

Seriously though, the fact is that no amount of legislation is going to prevent people from a) having guns and b) from using them to kill someone else. Not having a gun would make it a bit more difficult to kill someone on the spur of the moment but that's pretty much it.

I don't advocate free guns for all and neither do I advocate banishing the. They've been invented and will stay with us. What we need is educating people on the proper use and obviously anger and urge management.

2cents

jouni

[WalkerInTheWoods]

quote:Originally posted by jilola:
What we need is educating people on the proper use and obviously anger and urge management.

I agree with you on this. Everyone who owns a gun should be educated on how to use it properly and safely. This I believe is probably not enough though and really should have some kind of counseling or classes about anger and urges. This might help people remain calm or atleast walk away and cool down before doing something foolish.

[cainam_nazier]

Despite what most people think having a gun does not make it any easier to kill a person.  The desire and willingness to carry out those actions must be there reguardless of the weapon used.  You can just as easily kill a  person with your hands while in a rage as you could with a gun.  How ever the average person has extream difficulty when holding a gun and pointing it at some one.  Most people ARE NOT cabale of just pulling out a gun and shoting some one.  It is an incredible psycological burden.  And those that are not burden by the psycological impact of shooting a person, are capable of killing a person reguardless of the tool they use.  

On a side note.  I have known many police officers and I will tell you this.  If you ask a cop if they were more afraid of a person with a gun or a person with a knife, most of them would say the person with the knife.  And here is the reason.  Like I said most people could not use a gun on another person, and also there is a large chance that they don't know how to use the thing anyway.  However every Tom, willy, and Harry has been using a steak knife since they were 6, they know what it is, they know how it feels in the hand, it is not an unfamiliar feeling to hold one and cut stuff with it.  The actions of using a knife are "programed" in at a very early age.



David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
http://www.prepaidliving.com/vip/David127385

[rodentmouse]

I THINK
since there are no postive psychological attatchments to  guns or weapons we relate them to someting negative e.g violence or war.  
As soon as we see a weapon,  we think of violence - therfore  being exposed to images like these everyday  (tv, movies, news etc) only perpetuates in everyones mind that this is  the kind of world we live in - which i think  subconsiously destroys our moral.

What use do negative psychological images serve?

[jilola]

Cainam: I agree that one-on-one a guy with a knife is worse. But with a knife your average Joe can't really get 20-30 people before beaing subdued.
Anyway if somone's going to put me away I'd appreciate a personal effort that extends beyond pulling the trigger. After all I can run away from a blade but I can't outrun a bullet.
But this issue has as many opinions as it has people.
I dont have anything to add so I'll leave it at this.

2cents

jouni

[PeacefulWarrior]

I appreciate everything, and I mean everything, that has been said here.  Clandestino makes good points.

The following are a few stories of armed citizens who have saved their own life and/or the lives of others.  It wouldn't be easy, but just like Frank said, most people, when it comes down to it, could do it...because in the end, when someone threatens your life--it's either you or them.  

Unseen stories
by Robert A. Waters
April 24, 2002
On September 11, after two jets crashed into the Twin Towers in New York, the major television networks were faced with a crucial decision. Should they show the frightful scenes of victims jumping to their deaths from upwards of eighty stories? NBC, CNN, ABC, and CBS chose not to. Whether or not you agree with the networks, there is little doubt that their refusal to show all the news affected our attitudes about the attacks. Had those scenes been shown, American resolve to crush the terrorists might have dug even deeper.
The major networks affect opinion by what they don't show as much as by what does appear on our television screens. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the unseen side of the gun issue.
For instance, when was the last time the networks interviewed someone who used a gun in self-defense? Since these cases are almost never shown in the national media, millions of viewers assume that they never happen. School shootings, stories of employees going postal and gunning down co-workers, and even gang-related shootings are regular fare on television news. But because stories of armed self-defense are unseen, the implication is that guns are only used for harmful or criminal purposes.
Here are a few examples of stories you never saw.
On March 14, in a case that seemed a natural for national news, a football star was gunned down while trying to hold up a liquor store. Derrick Breedlove, a talented tight end, had recently signed a scholarship to play for Hampton University in Virginia. Scouts were already touting him for an NFL career. But when he entered the liquor store wearing a ski-mask and brandishing a sawed-off shotgun, Breedlove was shot and killed by a clerk.
On April 2, Virginia "Sue" Devoe was attacked in her Clintonville, Ohio home. Her former boyfriend, James Ryan McVey, kicked in the front door, dragged her through the house by her hair, and repeatedly kicked her. Then he attempted to kidnap her. That's when Devoe's 91-year-old neighbor came to her aid. Shirley Becraft drew his handgun and shot the intruder. McVey's death ended years of violent assaults on Devoe. A local investigator praised Becraft, saying, "It's hard to know where she would be now if he hadn't [shot McVey]."
On March 18, in Orange City, Florida, Robert Shockey waited inside Blockbuster Video for his son, who worked there, to close the store. The store had been the scene of a violent armed robbery a month before. Shockey, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, saw two ski-masked robbers burst through the doors. One carried a hunting rifle and threatened an employee. Shockey pulled his handgun and shot the gun-wielding assailant. When the second robber reached for the rifle that his accomplice had dropped, Shockey shot him. Police not only ruled the shooting self-defense, they stated that they planned to give Shockey a "good citizenship award."
And so it goes. On March 5, Bethan Scutchfield, a 71-year-old invalid from Colville, Washington fatally wounded a stranger who broke into her house and knocked her to the floor. On March 6, an 83-year-old San Antonio woman shot a teenager as he tried to break into her home. On March 3, in Pembroke Pines, Florida, two robbers pointed semiautomatic weapons at businessman Corey Dacres but the victim pulled his own gun and shot both of them. Dacres, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was not injured.
Keeping Secrets
By Robert A Waters
Posted: 09.20.00
March 27, 1999 wasn't a big day for national news. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN lead with stories about the continued bombing of Kosovo. After the lead story, the networks floundered to find seconds. They settled on reports about a scheduled baseball game between the Cuban National team and the Baltimore Orioles. Later, a CBS reporter dissected global weather patterns. Finally, the same network ended its newscast with a feature about a new law that would require reflectors on the bottom of truck trailers.
Not exactly the most compelling stuff.
But a story that would have riveted the attention of viewers was unfolding even as the evening news shows hit the air.
That afternoon, a twenty-seven-year-old Phoenix police officer named Marc Atkinson was tailing a white Lincoln Continental that he suspected had been stolen. It wasn't a high-speed pursuit - Atkinson was waiting for backup units to arrive before pulling the car over. Three very nervous Hispanic males were in the car as it tooled down West Thomas Road.
The Continental turned left on 31st Avenue, and Atkinson momentarily lost sight of it. As he rounded the corner, he saw that the car was stopped on the side of the road. Two men stood beside it with guns pointed at him. In an instant, Atkinson was cut down with a fusillade of gunfire. His last words to the dispatcher showed his professionalism. "Bail out!" he shouted.
The story could have ended with the murder of Atkinson.
But it didn't.
Rory Vertigan, an apartment manager and part-time security guard, had been driving behind the officer. As he turned the corner, he saw the ambush taking place. He watched in horror as Atkinson's police cruiser careened across the street and plowed into a street lamp. Vertigan braked to halt fifty feet behind the Continental.
He saw the assailants jump back into their car. But instead of trying to flee, they turned their attention to Vertigan. When two of the suspects aimed their guns at him and opened fire, he grabbed his Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol.
The suspects fired several more rounds at Vertigan, then backed their car into his Kia. Amid breaking glass and crashing metal, he leaned out the window and began shooting at the gunmen, using his left hand. In all, Vertigan fired fourteen rounds.
Later, Vertigan released a statement. "When I confronted the individuals in the white vehicle," he said, "they turned their guns on me. I was given no choice but to defend myself."
As the smoke cleared, the three men leaped out of their car and began to run. One of the gunmen, seriously wounded, didn't make it far. Vertigan, out of bullets now, tackled the suspect and held him for police.
The other gunmen attempted to hide in nearby businesses but were captured later that evening.
The Phoenix Police Department credited Vertigan with not only capturing one of the murderers, but of disabling the stolen car so they couldn't flee across the border.
The question must be asked: Why didn't this story make the national news? It was heavily covered in the Southwest, with television stations breaking into regular programming and interviewing everyone involved. The story was later picked up by both national wire services and newspapers across the country.
Even the search for the suspects was the stuff police drama is made of. One thug entered Bristow Optical holding a gun. The company's secretary dove under a desk and called 911. As officers converged on the building and other employees fled, the secretary kept police informed as to the suspect's whereabouts. With television crews recording every move, she was escorted from the building by police. Then officers entered the business and captured the suspect as he hid in a rest room.
Most Americans have grown up watching television. Much of our reality is shaped by the pictures we see.
Network executives learned long ago to make use of this phenomenon to promote their own political agenda. One of the ways they influence public opinion is through the omission of stories that would enhance the opposing viewpoint.
Because the national media refuses to carry stories about armed citizens who defend themselves and others, Americans don't get an accurate portrayal of the debate about guns.
It's almost like the media moguls have a secret they don't want us to know.
An exciting, heart-wrenching story such as this, breaking even as the evening news shows went on the air, would seem a natural.
But several things worked against it. First, Rory Vertigan was a member of the National Rifle Association and a strong advocate for gun rights. Second, a firearm was used to neutralize a murderous gang and lead to the capture of its members, something that seems to be taboo for the national press. Finally, a story such as this would have shown the world why many Americans choose to carry guns, and why our founding Fathers placed that right in the Constitution.
For whatever reason, the networks chose to spike the story.
And they wonder why they continue to lose viewers.
Source: Sierra Times
Blockbuster Robber Meets Florida Father
Originally ran here as:
Dad slays gunman inside son's store
by Rich McKay, Staff Writer
Orlando Sentinel
March 20, 2002
Dad slays gunman inside son's store
ORANGE CITY -- A father came to his son's rescue during an armed robbery attempt at a Blockbuster Video store Monday night -- slaying the gunman and wounding an accused accomplice with a .45-caliber pistol he kept under his shirt, detectives said.
It was no coincidence that Robert P. Shockey was at the store. Every night that his 20-year-old son, Gabe, closes up, Robert Shockey waited and watched. And he has been armed with his semi-automatic.
The reason is another robbery at the Blockbuster in January. During that crime, one of Gabe Shockey's co-workers was attacked and dragged around by his hair.
Shockey's son refused to quit his job, so the father did the only thing he could think of to protect his son -- watch.
"A lot of nights it'd be just him, and it's so dark there," Shockey said. "I'd go down, 10:30, 11 and sit in my car in the parking lot. I figured if there were cars there, it would help. If my son wasn't busy, I'd go in and talk to him.
"I don't consider myself a hero," he said. "I love my family."
Detectives say it was lucky he was there Monday.
Robert Shockey, a 50-year-old carpenter, was inside the Enterprise Road store about 11:45 p.m., 15 minutes before closing. There were no customers as Gabe Shockey went to the back office to tally up the day's receipts. Robert Shockey stood inside near the front counter talking to a young man on his first day of work.
From his DeLand home Tuesday, Shockey recalled the events. The door burst open and two men rushed in. Ski masks covered their faces. One brandished a rifle and both were shouting violent, obscenity-laced threats."They made it clear that they would kill us," Shockey said.
His son saw it on the monitors in the office and called 911. But the shooting happened just heartbeats later.
"It was fast -- an adrenaline moment," Shockey said. "I had no time to think, just react."
The gunman first pointed the rifle at Robert Shockey and then at an employee, identified only as Brian. While the rifle was pointed at the young employee, Shockey reached for the pistol tucked in his belt against the small of his back. He drew the weapon.
"I shouted, "Freeze!" he said. The man with the rifle -- standing only about 6 feet away -- turned and pointed it at Shockey.
Shockey fell silent for a moment when asked about what happened next. "It's got him shaken up," said his wife, Gloria.
Detectives say Shockey fired at least two shots, hitting the gunman once in the throat and once in the chest. The man detectives say was an accomplice then reached for the rifle, so Shockey fired again, hitting him in the chest. He fired a fourth shot that missed.
The man who died, 19-year-old James Franklin Wince of Deltona, was an off-duty employee of the store he was trying to rob, said detectives, who think Wince was involved in the January robbery.
The survivor, Darius Bennett, 18, is charged with murder in his partner's death under a law that allows someone involved in a felony to be charged with murder even if that person didn't do the killing. Felony murder is a second-degree murder, sheriff's spokesman Gary Davidson said.
Bennett was charged at his hospital bed in the intensive care unit at Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, where he was listed in stable condition Tuesday afternoon. Bennett, who also has several felony convictions, is expected to recover.
Shockey, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, received praise from sheriff's officials for his actions, and got a call from Sheriff Ben Johnson, who offered his support.
"He [Shockey] is going to get the good-citizenship award," Davidson said.
Detectives will forward their information to the State's Attorney's Office for a final decision.
Investigator Sgt. Bob Kelly said: "It appears to be a self-defense case."
Though only 19, Wince has a record of a half dozen arrests and several convictions on charges ranging from burglary to vehicle theft. A Blockbuster spokesman in Dallas, Randy Hargrove, said the company does not do criminal background checks at its Florida stores. He could not explain the reason for that policy.
Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said this case is "a tough call" for a group that favors strict gun laws.
He said he won't "second-guess" a parent defending his son, but Hayhoe is troubled with the second shooting.
"It's still a shooting of an unarmed person, and that's always troubling," he said.And he predicted the story will wind up in the National Rifle Association's publication, The American Rifleman, and its column, Armed Citizen, which recounts the stories of people who use guns to defend themselves.
The NRA declined to comment on the incident. But another group, the Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Va., applauded.
"It's a classic case of self-defense, and one less menace to society," said the group's executive director, Larry Pratt. "Good for him."
Robert Shockey doesn't want praise, saying, "I was just doing what I had to do."
Alicia C. Caldwell of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report.
Rich McKay can be reached at 386-253-2316.


fides quaerens intellectum

[WalkerInTheWoods]

You know, if the networks air stories like these it might actualy deter crime. I know I would think twice before I broke into someone's house or walked into a store to rob if I knew I might be killed. But instead tv protrays the criminals as being powerful and the citizens as being weak and bending to their will. When will they stop idolizing crime and start giving lawful citizens more respect?

[Tom]

It is true that most people would not be able to kill. Unfortunately, I suspect that I could do it and enjoy it. A gun would not be needed and in fact would be less satisfying. Actually, I have never really trusted guns. It is hard to imagine getting any satisfaction from their use, almost as hard as imagining any constructive purpose for a bullet in flight.

[Fenris]

"If I didnt own this gun the King of England could just walk in here and start pushin you around!...Do you want that!?" Homer Simpson

In Australia we have very strict gun laws (but not as bad as Englands), we can own Bolt action longarms if we attend a gun club or work on a property and we can own a handgun of any capasity but it can only be used on a range (not on private property). Not many people know it but our handgun owners also are checked out by ASIO our inteligence agency. Using a firearm for self defence is against the law period. We have had a number of trials where a gun owner who sticks to the rules has shot an armed intruder in their own home who was warned, all have been found guilty. This is so wrong it makes me angry.

Since the tightening of our gun laws and our 'buy back' scheme where the government gave people unsatisfactory amounts of money for their semi autos, firearm related death has increased and the number of roberies with firearms has increased dramatically. With the exception of some domestic violence killings and suicides, these crimes have been commited with illegal (restricted type of weapon or not registered) firearms buy unlicenced people. Government stastics outright show this and our prime minister will not comment. The reality is a lot of guns fetched a higher price on the black market than they did when given to the government. Often twice as much. Guns are here to stay and the only people these new laws affect are law abiding citizens. Criminals dont care about the law by definition, so where is the logic in creating blanket  laws for everyone aimed at criminals! There are more guns on the street than ever.

I own several long arms, I am a very sucessful target shooter and I absolutly cant get enough of shooting. I love the fact that all people, men, women,young, old, fit and unfit can compete on an equal basis. To be very good requires an extream degree of mental disipline, no other sport comes close to what is required, well maybe archery!. Like motor racing a lot of people find it satisfying to finely tune an instrument and try and work as one with it. And I must say I also dig the loud noises and the destruction when the steal plate I hit at 500m gets smacked off its stand. Its really fun! People say all sorts of verbal diorea about those who enjoy shooting having self esteam issues and the need to feel they have power over other people. Yes they do exist but they are few and they are very much shunned by the shooting community. The reality is shooting is simply fun and challenging.

The way I see it I am a peaceful law abiding person. If I get satisfaction from the safe sporting use of a firearm than I should have that right. There is no taking the guns off those who use them for evil, so why deprive me of what I enjoy.


Veni Vidi Vici

[General-Army]

i believe it could be easier in some times to get a murderer with a gun then a knife. A gun makes a loud noise most of the time, so people would know whats going on, but with a knife, the murderer could sneak in, kill one person, leave and on to the next. But if an armed intruder comes into your house, what are you susposed to do? Are you susposed to sit back and watch him kill you and your family?Or does the government expect everyone to know self defence and are able to easily aprehend an armed intruder? Btw, im watching tlc and discovery channel alot, is it true that under Englands law, that Minors cant do anything wrong? i was watching a pickpocketing special where it said something like that.

Every man has their fear of dieing, whether it be of pain or not knowing where you are going, however, mine is the family, memories, and good times i leave behind.

[cainam_nazier]

Fenris,

"People say all sorts of verbal diorea about those who enjoy shooting having self esteam issues and the need to feel they have power over other people. Yes they do exist but they are few and they are very much shunned by the shooting community. The reality is shooting is simply fun and challenging."

The sad thing is that can be said about ANY sport.  That is one of the points of a sport.  Compitition.

David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
http://www.prepaidliving.com/vip/David127385

[clandestino]

Hmmmm.............if someone broke into my home and threatened me or my loved ones, I wouldn't hesitate in shooting them if I had a gun...similarly in the examples in the articles pasted above, I might have behaved in the same way if I had a gun.

But against this, if everyone over here in London was permitted to own a hand gun, I think that shootings / injuries / deaths would become much more frequent, whether or not they were actually justifiable.

General Army - I'd like to be able to say "no, minors can't do what they like", but you are basically correct.....up to the age of 10, you can't be prosecuted. Up to the age of 16 (i think) you have a pretty free hand too....I'll try and dig up an article for you later that will show this !! The powers of the police in this country to do anything about juvenile crime are non - existent.

[Frank]

Correct, at age 10 or under English law says you are not legally accountable for your actions.

Yours,
Frank

[James S]

As a stark contract te the effectiveness of strict gun laws, my wife told me about an article she saw on one of the cable documentary channels not long ago. If anyone in the U.S. knows anything more about this please correct me if needed, but apparently there is a city in Texas where the county laws not only permit everyone to own and carry firearms, they are also permitted to shoot to kill in (warranted) self defence or property defence situations such as home invasion. The result of this is that this city has by far the lowest crime rate in the country, and the lowest number of gun related fatalities. Like I say If anyone has knowledge of such a city (my wife couldn't remember the specifics) let me know if this is a load of crap. As much as this might sound ridiculous, such a concept could also be quite feasable. If every citizen in a community has the potential to be lethal, criminals would have to think twice before taking advantage of someone.

Theres always the argument that such tactics just means that the crims end up with bigger and more powerful weapons, but the reality is a 9mm Glock can be just as lethal as a Vulcan 20mm gatling gun.

Having said that i am definitely not an advocate of owning a gun just for the sake of having one "just in case". Sports shooters & farmers have a valid reason for owning firearms. The rest of us don't. I've a set of Golf clubs that could take out a burglar just as well as a gun (just keep your head still, eye on the balls and remember to follow through http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0> )

Maybe we need more in the way of attitude control laws than gun control.
Aside from guns, how many other things can be used to kill people?
What about spoons?
As Alan Rickman said in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves:
"I'm going to cut his heart out with a spoon."
"why a spoon?"
"because it will hurt more you idiot!"





James S
(Fate amenable to change)

[Tisha]

I'm a peaceful person who wants to learn how to use a gun someday.  A a solo female, I want to be able to protect myself and my child, if it ever comes to that.  If women had guns and knew how to use them safely at home (along with a knowing variety of other self-defense techniques, like mace, karate, etc. to protect them on the streets), I think rape and mugging statistics would improve significantly, don't you?

That Texas town really exists, by the way.  Every community should be able to define what it thinks is acceptable . . . everything from "no guns whatsoever" to "everyone must carry a gun."  And every community should be ready to face the consequences of their decisions.

More people in the U.S. die from accidents than from gunfights.  That's the REAL problem with guns.  I believe if every child learned about gun safety (in school) at an early age (say 12 and up), and if every parent LOCKED UP their guns at home until needed, we'd have hardly any shooting accidents.  Unfortunately there are some very STUPID PEOPLE who kill themselves, and their children, and their neighbor's children, every year because they don't lock up their guns.  A messy, imprecise, and unfortunate expression of Darwin's Theory.  





Tisha

"As Above, So Below"

[cainam_nazier]

You know in Arizona you are still in you legal right to ask for a gun and a horse when the let you out of jail.

Just another U.B.I.

from.


David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
http://www.prepaidliving.com/vip/David127385

[Mobius]

Hi all

Very interesting thoughts on this topic, I'm not sure what to make of it though. Up until my mid twenties I had a real fascination with guns & weapons in general & did plenty of shooting & played skirmish all the time, which I thought was great fun. However I've done a full turn around with my way of thinking since then & now I don't like the idea of devices which can be used to take ones life or anyone elses quickly & with no contact, creating a situation where you don't directly feel what you are doing to someone else.

We have some serious issues here on this planet, & they really need to be addressed, but stocking up on guns I believe is addressing the "problem" & not the "cause" of the problems. You can have all the defences in the world, but what is being done to stop it happening in the first place? You can only stay bunkered down for so long, eventually you have to  leave the bunker & be part of the world you have helped create.

It doesn't matter how well you keep your guns locked up, it only takes one incident to ruin years of being careful, I'm sure you guys over in the states have had your fair share of accidents over there where a kid (who isn't trained with guns & doesn't understand the weight of their actions) gets hold of a gun & accidently shoots themselves or worse others. You can say that everyone should be armed so that you can defend yourself or prevent harm coming to others, but where does it stop? Is it a better solution that all kids go to school with a gun so as to protect themselves? Will that make less Colombines occur? Are you allowed to take guns into schools, universities or into parliament? Why do you think that is? Because dissagreements always happen & guns make it easy for everyone to see your point of view real quick.

It's true everything that Fenris said about the laws here in Australia concerning guns, but the greatest predjudice was against semi-automatic weapons & automatic weapons, things capable of killing lots of people real quick as in our Port Arthur massacre.

Clandestino & Frank : How old were those 2 boys that were convicted of murder & kidnapping of little james on the railway tracks? They were under age but still sent to childrens jail werent they, so I'm not sure about under age kids being able to do what they want. Like here in Australia, the courts try to go easy on first offences & under agers so as not to tarnish an entire lifetime for one small crime, however murder is usually an exception to the rule.

Dan : How does religion & guns go together? Like you have stated many times before to people questioning Christianity, "most Christians don't live by the rules set out for them, or they don't know what real Christianity is about". So how does guns go towards helping people better understand each other & bring about peace. After wars are fought & the arms dealers have made a fortune, in most cases, politicians still have to sit down & agree on a deal, mostly against the losers wishes, but a deal that could have been made without bloodshed. Your name might say "Peacful", but it also says "Warrior". I know the way you intend it to be interpreted, but in actual fact the two together contradict each other & become an oxymoron (not you, the word).

The example of Texas might point out that there is less gun deaths because everyone has a gun, but I'm not sure if everyone owning a gun brings about peace & understanding, more like fear & distrustfulness, the fear of not being able to disagree with someone, without being shot.

On a slightly different note, giving up my fascination with guns really helped me spiritually, on the astral, guns are useless & teaching myself to shoot targets better, had no value except in learning to be a more accurate killer if the time ever arose. That's counterproductive to the way I think & live my life & what I believe in........................................then again, I am entitled to my beliefs, just like you guys are.It's unfortunate that we still live in a world where they are needed & this saying unfortunately applies as well :
"Those who live by the sword..................get shot by those who don't."

Good journeys all

Mobius

[koshka]

One serious question:

if the ordinary, law-abiding, sovereign, adult citizen is forbidden ownership of firearms; who will be left in total ownership?  Forget the criminal for a moment.  Who does that leave?

[koshka]

One serious question:

if the ordinary, law-abiding, sovereign, adult citizen is forbidden ownership of firearms; who will be left in total ownership?  Forget the criminal for a moment.  Who does that leave?

[MJ-12]

fe

[andy]

I think that guns bring about a false sense of security when talking about self defense,but,if thats what it takes then so be it.Im not against the idea nor for it.

My line of work  is unfortuantly  targeted by crime,both organised and individuals.Having spoke to the local police departments both in the U.S and Canada I can tell you what they have told me when the issue of having a gun at work comes up* ABSOLUTLY NOT!* Statistics prove that if your the victim of an assault by (lets not forget) an addrenilin rushed possibly druged up nervous criminal who knows hes not supossed to be there,you are 85% more likely to be shot than if you just try and remian calm and sit tight.(those are not good odds) Oh,and thats asuming that that your gun is within reach.
Also, interstingly enough but not a real supprise they said it is a good idea to leave the safe open as upon the intial assult you will experience an adrenilan rush that will pucker your butt cheeks up so tight you couldnt pass a pin through em let alone rember a sticky safe combo.A open safe more or less will increase your odds of living opposed to the gun.(so much for the movies)

As for  the general public that wants to go out and target shoot or keep a gun around for security, all is fine by me.There are to many guns out there for the criminals anways so whats the point of riding honest people?
I do however feel that going down to the local gun show and buying an SKS complete with a 30 round detachable clip,folding swing arm and fixed bayonett from some backwoods yahoo who flys his flag upside down is a little extream and shold be stopped.That is a wepon for war.....

Peace!

[Mobius]

Hi guys

This is a tough one for me also. Like I said I used to have a fascination with guns & collected many books, did some pistol competitions & generaly thought they were a great idea. But I think the fascination with guns came about because of my fascination with death. After having OBE's since a child & living on top of ambulance stations for years, I began to wonder more & more about it, (physical death). It's one thing to see it on movies, it's another thing in real life.

So I asked people who had first hand experiences with this & I was hard pressed to find a cop, ambulance man, vietnam vet or world war 2 vet, who didn't have to fight to hold back tears on trying to talk about shooting someone, being shot or seeing someone shot. It leaves emotional scars for years on the very person who should feel like they have done nothing wrong. But they don't , most hide it from friends, family & the public so as to not burden them with their memories.

We allready have things like "stun guns", so why not develop those things more? I suspect the answer is much the same reason why free energy is a no go & oil is?? What a perfect product (guns), create a bit of unrest & the sales go up. Just like cars they have to buy a product that needs a constant input of fuel. The more death the better for sales. More anger & vengeance/retribution/ payback & you can tell your shareholders they are going to retire millionaires.

If you ask any cops or ambulance men or get the statistics, you will find that most deaths are perpetrated by someone you KNOW, that is, a family member or "friend". So it seems to me, just like war, the issues you have with someone, the more you should talk it through, instead of waiting until it gets to boiling point, there is always other ways.

Like the saying goes, "It's all fun & games, until someone loses an eye".

Good journeys all

Mobius