Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
Printable View
Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
Parksie, the problem is that there are a lot of stupid people out there. Every American on this link is allowed to own a gun. That's just scary.
http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
Most of the people I know who own guns are ignorant and intolerant. I know not everyone is like that, but I can say that the most reasonable and intelligent people I know do not own guns.
I'm not saying you're ignorant or intolerant. I'm only talking about people I know personally.
as well as the only calm person you know :p:DQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
Yeah, I see your point about stupid people.
FYI, I don't own much that can particularly hurt you. I've got a diver's knife (I am actually a diver, and knives are bloody useful if you wrap yourself in kelp or monofilament fishing line), and a BB gun which never makes it out of my room; I use it for shooting beer cans from the other side of the room when I can't sleep.
Good thing I'm not a violent man
/hides katana and claymore
:D
I actually love to shoot. I used to have a bb gun and used it for doing pretty much the same thing... shooting cans and such. I enjoyed going to the range when I was in the service. But I don't need to own a gun personally and I don't want to get killed by it when someone sneaks in and finds it while I'm asleep. Maybe I need one of Wally's claymores behind each window and each door :)
Presumably because you have b) you could get around a) if you were a psychoQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
I joined the rifle club at work, and had to wait 3 months for the checks to go through before I could even TOUCH something (bear in mind that I've had TA training with considerably more powerful weapons).
At present, I'm back to the .22s so that they can get an idea for my abilities. Am I likely to get a gun and go rampaging round killing people? No. Why? Because:
a) I have no access
b) I have a BRAIN!
Tell me again what happened to your headmaster :)Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
Not particularly ;) All I know is that I'm probably the calmest person I know, and getting angry is pretty much unheard of :)
I told you that? LOL :DQuote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Tell me again what happened to your headmaster :)
Yeah, I think he left me alone after that ;)
what did you do? ;)Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
I told you that? LOL :D
Yeah, I think he left me alone after that ;)
c'mon -these are the VBFs - we know EVERYTHING about you except the colour of your underwear :DQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
I told you that? LOL :D
[READS NEW PM FROM ALICE] purple? And the lace doesn't do you justice???
. . oops
I shoot for sport.
I shoot targets and game. I have 4 shotguns and 2 rifles. I have a certificate for the shotguns and a license for the rifles. I do not, have not and will never consider my guns as anything other than sporting equipment. They are kept locked in a cabinet that is grossly above the police proscribed security levels. The bolts of the rifles are stored seperately from the actions, all ammunition is stored away from the weapons.
I certainly do not think of my guns as a form of protection.
I have never pointed a gun at anyone, ever, even by accident, not in civvy life.
My main point is that all my shooting friends think and behave like this.
We have not and will never be a threat to anyone, safety is a passion for all of us.
\Quote:
Originally posted by beachbum
I'm all for giving people access to nuclear weapons as long as they promise not to destroy small cities. :rolleyes:
Large ones are okay, as long as they are government approved targets........
Hey BB, how about a BBQ on Friday, few beers, nuke KL that sort of thing
rj
Leave the seppos alone, what's a few school yard shootings, next to the right to bare arms.....
umm... what's that about naked arms?Quote:
Originally posted by Jethro
\
Leave the seppos alone, what's a few school yard shootings, next to the right to bare arms.....
If l spelt things correctly BB would accuse me of being an imposter.....
True... this way I could only accuse you of being IanpBaker :D :D
I have mixed feelings about gun control.
On the one hand, I dismiss claims that guns are necessary to defend one's self from violent crime and that if you make them illegal, all you do is give all the guns to the criminals.
Do people who believe the above not realise that you are just upping the stakes when guns are widely available? Whereas, in Britain, most muggers would not carry a gun, in America, a gun an essential tool of the trade. If a mugger has to worry about a potential victim carrying a gun, he'll just make sure that he has a bigger and better one.
However, on the other hand, I am reluctant to agree with an outright ban. Generally, I am pro-freedom and I don't think that it's a good idea to ban something for the majority because a minority can't handle it. Take drugs for example, I fully believe they should be legalised despite the fact that a minority can't handle them.
If you take this to it's logical extreme, you ban everything because nearly every activity known to man will be abused by the ignorant or crazy minority and you would have to ban cars, cutlery and heavy machinery. You wouldn't be able to do anything and we would have no liberty.
So, I cannot decide whether I agree with an outright ban on gun usage. The key difference with gun usage over every other type of activity (that is potentially dangerous) is that guns are weapons are are designed soley for the purpose of killing and maiming others. However, I have to acknowledge that most people do not use them for their intended purpose and that the is a good case for providing a legitimate outlet for people who want to use guns for sport.
Its been the tradition to take a pragmatic approach here - so where there have been successive massacres (Hungerford, Dunblane etc) a level of control is applied and if that turns out not to be enought then it is made stricter each time until the problem disappears (as it seems to have done in Britain).Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I have mixed feelings about gun control.
So, I cannot decide whether I agree with an outright ban on gun usage.
I think farmers would tell you that shotguns are for vermin control and so ARE used for their intended purpose.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
The key difference with gun usage over every other type of activity (that is potentially dangerous) is that guns are weapons are are designed soley for the purpose of killing and maiming others.
Kzin
In the case of Dunblaine, the guy had a license for the gun he used and had no trouble getting one despite the fact that he had known psycological problems.Quote:
Its been the tradition to take a pragmatic approach here - so where there have been successive massacres (Hungerford, Dunblaine etc) a level of control is applied and if that turns out not to be enought then it is made stricter each time until the problem disappears (as it seems to have done in Britain).
I think the trouble there was the lack of checks that were made, the controls not being enforced properly and not the fact that guns were legally available attall.
I acknowledge incidents such as these as a tragedy but why single out guns and not, say, cars? How many children die in road accidents every year? If we banned cars we could save more lives so what are we waiting for?
Should we ban metal cutlery as well? Should we only be allowed to buy plastic knives to stop the idiotic morons who stab themselves in the eye every year?
If there are any mass attacks with it and it proves to be impossible for ordinary citizens to disarm someone with it yes. So far that is the case with combat rifles, semi automatic pistols, flamethrowers, pipe bombs but not cricket bats (Prince Philip seemed a bit confused about those too) or metal cutlery.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
Should we ban metal cutlery as well? Should we only be allowed to buy plastic knives to stop the idiotic morons who stab themselves in the eye every year?
Can you see the difference (in terms of history of attacks and the ability of ordinary citizens to resist or disarm).
Prior to Dunblane you could get licences for combat rifles. Now you can't which is the point that I was making about adjusting the law in steps and responding to known and removable threats rather than hypothetical ones (like plastic spoon massacres).Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
In the case of Dunblane, the guy had a license for the gun he used and had no trouble getting one despite the fact that he had known psycological problems.
Because cars are a part of the fundamental transport infrastructure and are continually being legislated and made safer (UK road deaths are now lower than thge level in the 1920s).Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
I acknowledge incidents such as these as a tragedy but why single out guns and not, say, cars? How many children die in road accidents every year? If we banned cars we could save more lives so what are we waiting for?
For better or worse much of British society (particularly rural society) could not function at present without cars (supermarkets, commuter towns, country pubs ;), schools (now that village schools have been closed down), factories on industrial parks/estates etc. Do you think that gun restrictions have had a similar impact?
Your analogy would be closer if I was suggesting banning guns for soldiers on active service.
Not wishing to be picky, but it's Dunblane. It's one of those things that I think deserves to be got right.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Prior to Dunblaine ...
I stand corrected - so what are your views on causes and solutions (other than on the spelling) . . .Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
Not wishing to be picky, but it's Dunblane. It's one of those things that I think deserves to be got right.
Kzin
Why does it have to be a mass attack? Because the incidents of death are a multitude of isolated incidents rather than one mass incident, that's somehow worse?Quote:
If there are any mass attacks with it and it proves to be impossible for ordinary citizens to disarm someone with it yes.
As for capacity for disarmament, I doubt that your average citizen could disarm somebody with a kitchen knife (particularly if they knew how to use it).
No, I don't but I was not equating usefulness to society with tolerated risk.Quote:
For better or worse much of British society (particularly rural society) could not function at present without cars (supermarkets, commuter towns, country pubs , schools (now that village schools have been closed down), factories on industrial parks/estates etc. Do you think that gun restrictions have had a similar impact?
You do have a point but I don't think usefulness to society is a prime consideration when deciding whether a particular activity is too dangerous to be legal. I doubt that smoking cannabis is very useful to society but that doesn't mean that it should be banned merely because there is a perceived risk. What use does rock climbing provide to society yet we tolerate that sport with all it's risks?
I don't personnally like gun usage or ownership but I would tend to err on the side of liberty when considering the legality of particular activities.
Do you mean you do not like the idea of you using or owning a gun, or anybody using or owning a gun, me for instance?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I don't personnally like gun usage or ownership but I would tend to err on the side of liberty when considering the legality of particular activities.
GlenW
No, I have nothing against people who like guns, parse.
I, personally, would not like to own or use a gun under any circumstance.
Depend whether you think shooting children in a school is equivalent to falling off a rock wall or giving yourself throat cancer with Ganga. I'm quite happy to live in a place which only has the minimum number of laws needed to protect people from one another and no other laws [although I prefer the system we actually have]. I don't see much point in one that does not give that level of protection. Different people will obviously disagree on what constitutes the minimum protection.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
You do have a point but I don't think usefulness to society is a prime consideration when deciding whether a particular activity is too dangerous to be legal. I doubt that smoking cannabis is very useful to society but that doesn't mean that it should be banned merely because there is a perceived risk. What use does rock climbing provide to society yet we tolerate that sport with all it's risks?
The myth of the noble samurai eh? (well thats what these jerks think they are). You don't remember Lisa Potts the nursery school teacher who disarmed one of these jumped up nutters single handed in her school.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
As for capacity for disarmament, I doubt that your average citizen could disarm somebody with a kitchen knife (particularly if they knew how to use it).
I think if you pulled a knife on a child in a public place in the south of england your "time-before-head-caved-in-by-17-stone-passing-bloke" would be very short indeed.
A quick search of the internet supports this.
http://www.educationderbyshire.co.uk...n/010130fc.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/edu...000/192474.stm
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/educationnow/lisapotts.htm
I'm off now - I'll be back with a Marines surplus surplus Vulcan Phalanx CIWS or a plastic spoon [both my citizens right to own] to settle this later.:p
1) Scotland
2) Germany
3) US
Katie, what are you trying to say?
We may be loonies........we are loonies............but we aren't the looniest.
It is a tragedy anytime there is sensless violence. Since it is just that, senseless, trying to make sense of it is beyond what sane people can fathom! Gun control doesn't help when people are crazy. It helps lower the overall cases, but it will never stop it. We are a screwed up life form bent on our own demise. :(
True, there are loonies the world over. But, America is definitely the looniest of the lot!Quote:
We may be loonies........we are loonies............but we aren't the looniest.
Just sticking my head around the corner of the door for a couple of seconds.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
We may be loonies........we are loonies............but we aren't the looniest.
It is a tragedy anytime there is sensless violence. Since it is just that, senseless, trying to make sense of it is beyond what sane people can fathom! Gun control doesn't help when people are crazy. It helps lower the overall cases, but it will never stop it. We are a screwed up life form bent on our own demise. :(
Its not a question of having loonies Katie - its a question of arming then (or voting for them if you are French ;)). After the Scottish incident we imposed much tighter gun controls (ours used to be about the same as Germany) and we don't seem to have had similar incidents since. The aussies did the same after Tasmania.
sure sounds like helping to me ;)Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Gun control doesn't help when people are crazy. It helps lower the overall cases,
Do you know any [life forms] that aren't (you should hear what an Austrailian girl was telling me about wombats this weekend ;))Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
We are a screwed up life form bent on our own demise. :(
. . back to work
Kzin
Well, it's a bit of an assumption to say that such incidents have been prevented since the gun controls came into effect. It was never exactly your every day sort of incident.Quote:
After the Scottish incident we imposed much tighter gun controls (ours used to be about the same as Germany) and we don't seem to have had similar incidents since.