Well that answers one of my questions, at least.
Now substitute the figure for "deliberate deaths" instead of that for "accidental deaths" and see what it shows.
Lies, damned lies and........
mysteryman wrote:McTag wrote:"....a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order."
If I was going to set about doing that, from first principles, one of the obvious steps would be to take away the guns from the bad guys.
And since there's no way of telling the good guys from the bad, that would have to mean everybody.
Seems like common sense to me, and you don't have to get bogged down in sonorous statements about inalienable rights. What about my rights not to be shot?
The best way to not get shot is to not threaten others with bodily harm.
I notice you ignored what the courts said about the police, why is that?
Did it not fit your mindset?
It looked very much like a whitewash job. I don't think a coroner's court here would have reached a similar decision in these circumstances.
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Im not asking that you care about me. Only that you think about you.
Those of us that own guns, for pleasure, hunting, or self defense ARE thinking about ourselves.
Interesting order you chose to place these aims in.
What is "hunting"? For most, is it not putting out some bait or a decoy, going into hiding, and shooting an animal or bird in an ambush, if one strays within range?
It sounds kind of manly, doesn't it.
Do you look at yourself in the mirror while holding a gun? Do you possess a photograph of yourself holding a gun? Did you feel embarassment when you saw that scene in
Taxi Driver with Robert de Niro?
rabel22 wrote:Mc Tag
Your treading on dangerous ground when you try to take away a U.S. citizens right to act like John Wayne.
How do you figure that having the right to self-defense constitutes "acting like John Wayne?" What a distortion.
McTag wrote:Well that answers one of my questions, at least.
Now substitute the figure for "deliberate deaths" instead of that for "accidental deaths" and see what it shows.
Lies, damned lies and........
Guns aren't responsible for people's choices to murder other people. People who want to murder will do so regardless of what tool is available to carry out the deed.
McTag wrote:Do you look at yourself in the mirror while holding a gun? Do you possess a photograph of yourself holding a gun? Did you feel embarassment when you saw that scene in Taxi Driver with Robert de Niro?
Posting bigoted stereotypes of gun owners doesn't aid your cause.
Mac--
You don't understand. You are suffering from cultural dislocation.
We Brits like our Government. It is, in the main, peopled by well-educated Nannies who are doing their best in all the circumstances to look after us and those who come after us.
As someone recently said, I forget who, "The US is full of bullies". The stereotype hero is the Clint Eastwood figure. Always knowing what he's doing and who trusts his own judgement implicitly. Here, the hero is a complete idiot in those regards. He is conscious of the complexity of things and his own insignificant part in it all. He would really rather not make any decisions at all in an ideal world. He has been to Eton or somesuch and Oxbridge where self-affacement is de-rigeur.
Hence we are not frightened of our Goverment. We see the Queen on top of it all, with the military under her leadership, and who could be frightened of such a Lady. Or even of her son when his turn comes. He talks to the flowers for eff's sake. Nobody's self esteem is founded on them looking good. Strutting is frowned upon here.
We see in the US elite people who look and sound like they have had no real education at all and are solely concerned with looking good and commanding. A sort of father figure if you like. It's all an act obviously because the fact is that the complexity of things is such that insignificance is unavoidable. There is some dignity in recognising that but there's none at all going about in the belief that everything is simple and that one grasps it and knows what to do about it as everybody knows what to do about simple things.
No actor has risen to the top here. Glenda Jackson is the nearest and she's out on a limb with people writing in the Sunday Times about her Mohican style pubic hair configuration which, it seems, Auberon Waugh spotted on the set of Women in Love. (Pic of Oliver Reed pretending to be giving her one in the buff included).
The signs are that actors are on the verge of taking over in the US. Our last Speaker of the House of Commons had been a chorus girl and much harmless fun resulted. If Arnie qualified under the rules he would be a shoo-in in November. He needs more years having his residual Europeanism leeched out of him and nowhere better to do that than California where, according to a friend of mine who worked there for two months- "they are all mad".
So bearing this in mind, and much else in a similar vein, it is understandable that Americans are scared stiff of their Government. I would be if I was an American.
It's all a load of bullshit about hunting and self defence and equipment fetishes and machismo projection. They are armed to remind their Government not to take too many liberties with their so called freedom.
They can't even nip across the street before the little green man shown putting his best foot forward lights up mind you without being wrestled to the ground by two or three burly cops, handcuffed and thrown into the back of a van and any resistance is soon translated into "resisting arrest". Such freedoms should be defended.
So, Mac, you are in error in calling into question the institutions of another nation. In fact doing so is an American characteristic.
The French Goverment, with which we get friendlier daily, is loathe to allow American movies to be shown under its jurisdiction for these very reasons. The ordinary Frenchman rips up all the cobbles in the Avenue des Champs-Élysées and blocks up all the motorways with tractors and herds of cows to keep his Government in its place. Americans find such crass behaviour atrocious. It's inconvenient and convenience is a way of life in the US. They go individually out into the wilds and pot a sitting duck to protect their freedoms.
We rely on satire. And sound education of course. Like wot ya get in VIZ.
If I was a John Doe I think I might consider it my duty to purchase, store and maintain a firearm and ammunition. I would of course lock them all away out of sight. I would know when to get them out. It would be on telly.
McTag wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:Im not asking that you care about me. Only that you think about you.
Those of us that own guns, for pleasure, hunting, or self defense ARE thinking about ourselves.
Interesting order you chose to place these aims in.
What is "hunting"? For most, is it not putting out some bait or a decoy, going into hiding, and shooting an animal or bird in an ambush, if one strays within range?
It sounds kind of manly, doesn't it.
Do you look at yourself in the mirror while holding a gun? Do you possess a photograph of yourself holding a gun? Did you feel embarassment when you saw that scene in
Taxi Driver with Robert de Niro?
Since you dont live in the US, why does it matter to you that we have a right to own weapons
mysteryman wrote:McTag wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:Im not asking that you care about me. Only that you think about you.
Those of us that own guns, for pleasure, hunting, or self defense ARE thinking about ourselves.
Interesting order you chose to place these aims in.
What is "hunting"? For most, is it not putting out some bait or a decoy, going into hiding, and shooting an animal or bird in an ambush, if one strays within range?
It sounds kind of manly, doesn't it.
Do you look at yourself in the mirror while holding a gun? Do you possess a photograph of yourself holding a gun? Did you feel embarassment when you saw that scene in
Taxi Driver with Robert de Niro?
Since you dont live in the US,
why does it matter to you that we have a right to own weapons
( because in the back of his mind,
he is haunted by the knowledge that it is a
natural right of
EVERY human being )
David
McTag wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:McTag wrote:
I'm getting pretty fed-up with "inalienable rights" ad nauseam and 230-year-old declarations treated like Moses had come down from the mount with them tucked under his arm.
LOL !! who really cares if you're fed-up or not.
Our inalienable rights are more important than the declarations Moses shared.
And you in Georgia too. I hope you're not struck by a lightning bolt this weekend. :wink:
Im not asking that you care about me. Only that you think about you.
Since the day of my birth,
I have always been a very selfish person.
Everyone shud be.
David
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Im not asking that you care about me. Only that you think about you.
Those of us that own guns, for pleasure, hunting, or self defense ARE thinking about ourselves.
I suggest you do some light reading, so here is a good place to start...
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/0505gr-lets06.html
Quote:May. 6, 2005 12:00 AM
The police are not required to protect individual citizens.
In Warren v. District of Columbia 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen . . . a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order."
Also in Bowers v. DeVito 1982, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." advertisement
Armed law-abiding citizens are just doing what is needed to do to be safe from criminals and madmen in their homes, cars, bars or restaurants.
So now lets do a little more research...
http://www.projectposner.org/case/1982/686F2d616/
Quote:But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html
Read the last sentence.
As you can see, the police are not obligated to protect citizens, so citizens must be able to defend and protect themselves.
While most people will not be victims of crime, the fact that it CAN happen is enough to allow me to defend myself.
Indeed.
When the Constitution was written,
NO police existed anywhere in the USA, nor in England,
until the next century.
David
David wrote-
Quote:Since the day of my birth,
I have always been a very selfish person.
Everyone shud be.
A mere affectation old boy I'm afraid. Whistling up one's independent spirit when lost in a snowstorm.
David wrote-
Quote:NO one is trustworthy.
Trust shud be kept to a minimum.
The trust you put in such statements is rather amusing.
mysteryman wrote:McTag wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:Im not asking that you care about me. Only that you think about you.
Those of us that own guns, for pleasure, hunting, or self defense ARE thinking about ourselves.
Interesting order you chose to place these aims in.
What is "hunting"? For most, is it not putting out some bait or a decoy, going into hiding, and shooting an animal or bird in an ambush, if one strays within range?
It sounds kind of manly, doesn't it.
Do you look at yourself in the mirror while holding a gun? Do you possess a photograph of yourself holding a gun? Did you feel embarassment when you saw that scene in
Taxi Driver with Robert de Niro?
Since you dont live in the US, why does it matter to you that we have a right to own weapons
It's complicated.
But I don't like reading about all the mall and school slayings, and the guys in car trunks with sniper rifles.
We've had similar shootings too, but fewer.
I don't like it either, McTag. Still, I'm a long ways from giving up the ability to defend myself from such, as the opportunity presents. Very obviously, you do not defend from a rifle equipped sniper with a handgun, but I know you understand the principle.
OmSigDAVID wrote:[Since the day of my birth,
I have always been a very selfish person.
Everyone shud be.
David
It's possible to go to far with this idea, but I'm much more likely to trust someone with known, selfish motives than the person who says he is acting for "my own good".
Every freedom is messy and has some cost. Freedom of speech and assemby, for example, occasionally require the police to guard marchers or demonstrators for unpopular causes, which costs money. Once you accept the idea that everyone is entitled to personal liberty, then the right to defend one's person follows immediately, and the statistics regarding gun violence are interesting, but irrelevant.
McTag wrote:
I don't like reading about all the mall and school slayings, and the guys in car trunks with sniper rifles.
Those events are few and far between.
Be happy that every single death and injury caused by motorized vehicles on a daily basis is not published.
People firing guns have killed and injured far less people than people driving motor vehicles.
Get you facts straight, it was 2 nut jobs with a single AR 15 fired from the trunk of a single car. BTW, the AR 15 is not a sniper rifle.
