Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Anti-gun protests in London


Blackleaf
 Share

Recommended Posts

PadawanOsswe Posted Today, 02:36 PM

well said twpdyp

Thank-You

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Celumnaz

    38

  • Iilaa'mpuul'xem

    65

  • TheOriginalF

    32

  • onep0int

    62

OK heres another situation..

Your wife and children have been wiped out by some creep, they are all dead, you and the police know he his the one responsible for the marders and on the day of his court final hearing he gets off on a technicality or lack of sufficient evidence.

As he leaves the court a free man with a smug smile across his face your on the steps outside carrying a firearm that is licenced to you... he gets within 5 feet from you smiling in your face??

What do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XSAS Posted Today, 02:51 PM

 

OK heres another situation..

Your wife and children have been wiped out by some creep, they are all dead, you and the police know he his the one responsible for the marders and on the day of his court final hearing he gets off on a technicality or lack of sufficient evidence.

As he leaves the court a free man with a smug smile across his face your on the steps outside carrying a firearm that is licenced to you... he gets within 5 feet from you smiling in your face??

What do you do?

He would have a .44 magnum round going into his skull and exiting out the back side. That is a different thing all together. But to answer your question I would do what the courts failed to do. At that point I would have nothing to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

twpdyp, you have admitted yourself you are one of the sensible license holder of guns and sadly with gun control it effects the the likes of you and many 1000's that had their weapons removed in the UK.

I know my scenario was a little extreme but you would do the same if it was 1 member of your family, hell I don't know anyone that wouldn't.

However you would be the one killing an innocent victim as the justice system let him go a free man, unconvicted of any crime yet morally you did what any of us would have done but at the end of the day you shot and killed an innocent man in the eyes of the law and I agree also that there are many situations in most peoples life that if they had a gun it would without doubt have been used some not as extreme as this but we can't take the law into our own hands, it is not up to us to defend ourselves with guns, we leave that to the Police and the justice system.

You and I although we disagree are not that much different, I am a gun enthusiast, I have handled more weapons than I care to remember, I have seen them from both sides of the barrel, I have been shot and shot and killed a lot of people, I have taken so many lives now that it just became a job... that person was an obstacle I had to get passed for me to fulfill my duty... I have the greatest respect for the gun, Gun control in the UK was handled badly and could have been handled better than it was... but I would hate to think they were as freely available here as they are in teh USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I still have yet to hear one valid argument as to why anybody needs a handgun, so far I've heard convenience and hobby. I'm sorry but I don't think either of those justify anybody needing a a tool that was simply designed to kill. You say Celumnaz, that it's just an irrational fear of handguns, I would also venture to say that people who are hung up on self defense have an irrational fear of those around them. Of course that only works if we want to get into stereotyping everybody...but it's a two way street.

No one needs a gun.But I don t see why people shouldn t have a gun either.

PS. There is a thread dedicated to this particular issue.

Edited by Snake_6024
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XSAS Posted Today, 03:45 PM

 

twpdyp, you have admitted yourself you are one of the sensible license holder of guns and sadly with gun control it effects the the likes of you and many 1000's that had their weapons removed in the UK.

I know my scenario was a little extreme but you would do the same if it was 1 member of your family, hell I don't know anyone that wouldn't.

However you would be the one killing an innocent victim as the justice system let him go a free man, unconvicted of any crime yet morally you did what any of us would have done but at the end of the day you shot and killed an innocent man in the eyes of the law and I agree also that there are many situations in most peoples life that if they had a gun it would without doubt have been used some not as extreme as this but we can't take the law into our own hands, it is not up to us to defend ourselves with guns, we leave that to the Police and the justice system.

You and I although we disagree are not that much different, I am a gun enthusiast, I have handled more weapons than I care to remember, I have seen them from both sides of the barrel, I have been shot and shot and killed a lot of people, I have taken so many lives now that it just became a job... that person was an obstacle I had to get passed for me to fulfill my duty... I have the greatest respect for the gun, Gun control in the UK was handled badly and could have been handled better than it was... but I would hate to think they were as freely available here as they are in teh USA.

I am to let the police and the justice system do the defending of my family and property. You like scenarios, let me try this one. This is something that happens all to frequently. I hear someone trying to get through my front door, it is 3:00am. I reach over and call 911. While I am in the middle of trying to get the police the intruder gets my door open. As I asked earlier am I to just cower under the blankets and hope the bad guy doesn't have a gun or other weapon. Am I to hope the police arrive before he decides to get rid of any witnesses. I put it to you sir that in the course of defending my family and property I am not taking the law into my hands I am exercising my right to protect what is mine. Because the police cannot be every where I must do what is necessary until they arrive. I will not cower and snivel praying that law enforcement arrives just in time. I will use every means available to defend my family. If that means killing some intruder before he has a chance to kill my baby son or my wife or me then by God I will not hesitate to shoot. It is not paranoia like some other poster said it is a reality. If an intruder or would be criminal comes at me with a knife am I to just stand there? What if a club is his weapon of choice, should I just duck his attempts at bludgeoning me? After you have crossed the threshold of common behavior and entered into the arena of infringing on my family's safety or my safety I then have the right to take steps to stop you from whatever it is you intend to do that infringes on the right to safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said there are many times in our lives when we would use a gun to resolve the problem... now thankfully in the UK very few intruders in to our own homes do not carry guns and that is because of gun control... I would be the first to admit if a gun was to hand I would use it and if I had to live in the US with my family I would be armed..... purely and simply because you have lost control and have to reply back with fire power.

I protect people for a living, I get kidnapped victims back, I retreive abducted children and get them back to their legal custodial guardians.. the easiest countries for me to work in are countries that have no control over guns.

I don't give 2 ****s about the cancerous sh** in our society but I do give a sh** about the innocent victims, I can't see how as a Western country you can dictate on how how other countries live their lives when every man and his dog can carry... take this to the extreme and look at weapons of mass destruction? many countries have developed them for protection if Iraq had used them against the west after the invasion of there country would this be wrong.. this is no different to you using your gun to protect your home and family.

Edited by Magikman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: You don t need guns to protect yourself.Even if the intruder himself has one.

2: How can you rely on people you don t know?Next time you meet a police officer

observe him carefully.This is the person responsible for your and your children s

safety.Could you outwit him?Could you beat him in a fight?If this is the case,

why do you think a burglar/murderer/serial killer etc. is a worse fighter than

you are and not as intelligent.Why do you think,you are safer with him being

trusted with your safety rather than yourself.

Edited by Snake_6024
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how as a Western country you can dictate on how how other countries live their lives when every man and his dog can carry...

What does one have to do with the other? And their lives are already being dictated, by <gasp> dictators, we want them to live their own lives, for stability in other countries affects the whole world. Oh wait... we're insular... man it's hard to keep these idelogical attacks against America straight... they're all over the place. Insular Imperialists, check.

take this to the extreme and look at weapons of mass destruction? many countries have developed them for protection if Iraq had used them against the west after the invasion of there country would this be wrong.. this is no different to you using your gun to protect your home and family.

Equating a handgun to a nuke. Brilliant. Never been argued before. wacko.gif

And you do what for a living?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I do what for a living........ What do you do???

Edited by Magikman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I do what for a living........ What do you do???

I've explained it all before in some other post here. You're the one that brought your occupation into this.

I protect people for a living, I get kidnapped victims back, I retreive abducted children and get them back to their legal custodial guardians..

I just never thought that someone who works in such a potentially risky environment, with innocent lives at stake, doesn't see the problem with equating a nuke, with a handgun. Supprised me is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is trigger happy. Thousands die each year in the U.S ! ! ! when the other year only under 10 people died from gun shots in the U.K !

Why do anyone need guns. They have no place in society at all and I don't ever want the U.K to legalize buying handguns even to protect themselves.

having guns available is so dumb.

We do have a problem here in the UK with gangs and real **** up people. Most attacks don't end with the victim dead. But if guns were available then the U.K would see a big rise in gun related deaths. That is something no1 here wants in the U.K.

I have to walk past these gangs everyday, Ive been involved in fights against some of them. Im just thinking how it would of all escalated out of control if they had easy access to gun's.

Hardly anyone here in the UK wants guns and thats the way it will stay for the safety of us all.

It would definitly be a scary place around where I live if I knew anyone could have a gun. Also chances of making it out of this area a live would probably fall. mellow.gif

Maybe its the U.S that needs to look at their problem more closely and policies.

Edited by whoa182
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: You don t need guns to protect yourself.Even if the intruder himself has one.

2: How can you rely on people you don t know?Next time you meet a police officer

    observe him carefully.This is the person responsible for your and your children s

    safety.Could you outwit him?Could you beat him in a fight?If this is the  case,

    why do you think a burglar/murderer/serial killer etc. is a worse fighter than

    you are and not as intelligent.Why do you think,you are safer with him being 

    trusted with your safety rather than yourself.

632349[/snapback]

laugh.gif if the intruder has a firearm and you dont, ya better have damn good stealth and a pointy stick

no, a police officer's job is to clean up the scum of the earth off of the streets, they cant get em all no.gif , if someone breaks in my house dialing the phone for the police would take too long, a firearm would be your best defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laugh.gif if the intruder has a firearm and you dont, ya better have damn good stealth and a pointy stick

But what are the chances an intruder will have a fire arm in the U.K ? Its certainly significantly lower because of gun control wouldn't you say?

no, a police officer's job is to clean up the scum of the earth off of the streets, they cant get em all no.gif , if someone breaks in my house dialing the phone for the police would take too long, a firearm would be your best defense.

We are allowed to use force in the U.K and hit them with a baseball bat if we wish. But thats only if they don't leave and confront you. If they are running away then you do not hit them.

You should phone the police if you get the chance. Its only 3 digits ! and then do whatever to protect yourself. In the US you may need a gun to protect yourself

But why do you?

because the U.S has no control over guns !

Edited by whoa182
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh we have restrictions on certain firearms, its not like a 13 year old can go out and buy an M-60 machine gun.

why do we need firearms?

-for protection

-for sport

-historical collection

-etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I do what for a living........ What do you do???

I've explained it all before in some other post here. You're the one that brought your occupation into this.

I protect people for a living, I get kidnapped victims back, I retreive abducted children and get them back to their legal custodial guardians..

I just never thought that someone who works in such a potentially risky environment, with innocent lives at stake, doesn't see the problem with equating a nuke, with a handgun. Supprised me is all.

632826[/snapback]

Ok then explain the differences.. It is alright for you to shoot an agressor that is armed and trespassing in your home yet it is OK for the US to invade the home of another country becuase they feel they have weapons of mass destruction that may or may not have been developed for defence.. I know the Iraqi's have been living under a dictorship, it is the only way to control a culture like that.. we knoe there are severl other countries that have W.O.M.D. so why not invade them as well... ooopps I am going off topic.

There is no difference in comparing the two other than the size of the weapon... an invasion of another country is no different to an invasion of your own home.

As for you explaining what you do for a living in some other post... well excuse me for not wanting to read everything you have posted.. and the reason I brought my occupation into this is because I live with and deal with guns everyday no different to me being a doctor and joining a discussion on Immune sytems.

Edited by XSAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police have enough to deal with at the moment. It would be a much harder job for them if they had to try and handle situations with guns involved. Its really not in our interest to have guns here in the UK and I would think that most people in the UK would agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PadawanOsswe Posted Yesterday, 11:46 PM

  oh we have restrictions on certain firearms, its not like a 13 year old can go out and buy an M-60 machine gun.

why do we need firearms?

-for protection

-for sport

-historical collection

-etc...

I have one more reason for you, The second amendment to the United States Constitution

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on

Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_...transcript.html

No more needs to be said, this great document gives me and my fellow Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

Edited by twpdyp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all else fails lets pull out the constitution... big yawn??? It is like being in Church listening to a Catholic bible reading.. it just rambles on and on with relevence meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XSAS Posted Today, 05:41 PM

 

If all else fails lets pull out the constitution... big yawn??? It is like being in Church listening to a Catholic bible reading.. it just rambles on and on with relevence meaning.

Say what you will that document is the corner stone of my country and yes I will pull it out as often as I damn well please. After the Government takes away my guns what is next my freedom of speech and right right to peacful assembly. Gun ownership is a right I have and it is a right I will continue to fight for just as hard as I would fight for any of the rights given to me by the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please the second amendment is horrible outdated and no longer holds any relevance in todays society. Two hundred and thirty years ago in an unorganized and young country it made sense. How on earth would a bunch or un-unified and untrained civilians defend themselves against the onslaught of an organized, well trained, well funded, technology driven military? It's impossible and completely ridiculous to think that we could defend ourselves with a militia of rifles and handguns.

It's okay to admit that ones reliance on firearms is completely superficial. Hobby, sport, "protection" whatever, until the laws change it's your right to hold on to them like child clinging to a pacifier, but let's not pretend this is some deep patriotic act. God, America and Guns...please...it's so cliche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XSAS Posted Today, 05:41 PM

 

If all else fails lets pull out the constitution... big yawn??? It is like being in Church listening to a Catholic bible reading.. it just rambles on and on with relevence meaning.

Say what you will that document is the corner stone of my country and yes I will pull it out as often as I damn well please. After the Government takes away my guns what is next my freedom of speech and right right to peacful assembly. Gun ownership is a right I have and it is a right I will continue to fight for just as hard as I would fight for any of the rights given to me by the Constitution.

633701[/snapback]

If something the USA are good at it is mind control and brainwashing inhabitants... probably why they have so many cults settling and thriving there.

Statistics: Gun Violence

School Safety

Less than 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. (Centers for Disease Control, 1997)

Children and Gun Violence

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

50 children a week... proably less than tha amoubt of people killed in Iraq every week at the moment.

America and Gun Violence

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

Guns in the Wrong Hands

Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records.

Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths.

In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school.

Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend.

The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day.

Children and Gun Violence

America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America.

In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

Damn I bet that makes you feel good about the constuitution.

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Guns in the Wrong Hands

Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data, only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone.

Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources.

Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals.

The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.

In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school.

60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to

And what is funny about all this, is the USA have the ordacity to invade other countries and the threaten syria, china, North Korea, iran etc.. how they should run there country... try cleaning up your own back yard first..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The children-with-guns problem can be blamed on the parents not the government(Altough they have their part in it as well).

I think it is the " american lifestyle" that is the problem, not a law or the lack of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think XSAS has made it very obvious that gun's serve no purpose in any society.

Of course its the parents and childs fault. But the fact is, if there were no guns a hell of a lot of lives would be saved every year and you wouldn't have all these mass killings going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.