FREEDOM MARCHES ON !!!

Montana:

Find the article in "Rolling Stone" and check out "Public Eye". And it may give you a glimpse.

The problem is that they should be in fear of what the NRA's "Buddy" John Ashcroft is doing--
but wait, he has the NRA "Seal Of Approval"

This whole thing about guns baffles me completely. Here in the UK the only people who have guns are the police, farmers for pest control (under strict licence) members of shooting clubs (who I believe have to leave the weapons at the club) and a handful of drug-dealers (who mainly use them to shoot each other in turf wars). I assume that the US is too far down the path of public gun-ownership to change now, but it's a real shame that you're all stuck with them forever. I hope the UK never has general public gun ownership.

Your Highness,
Permit me to explain it simply:
Occasionally, one may fall victim to the violent depredations
of criminals or of animals.
In such situations survival can depend upon swift access to effective emergency equipment,
because it is imperative that the victim have MORE power than
(or at least EQUAL power to) the predator.

Innocent, unarmed people have been eaten, while they live.
Man has gained dominion over his environment by TOOLMAKING.
When faced with an emergency, one needs the requisite tool.
Its ABSENCE can result in a painful end.

Those people that got shot by the sniper a few months ago. What good would a magnum in their pocket have been?
But if the sniper hadn't been able to get a long range weapon specifically designed for the purpose of killing human beings, they'd still be here. But lets not let the truth interfere with the gun lobby's view of the world.

Wilso:

But OmSig and his ilk would say that eveyone shuld be able to get on of those rifles.

And you little sipral goes on!

Out of interest, David, how many guns/rifles do you have?

Out of interest, David, how many guns/rifles do you have?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Your Highness,
Permit me to explain it simply:
Occasionally, one may fall victim to the violent depredations
of criminals or of animals.
In such situations survival can depend upon swift access to effective emergency equipment,
because it is imperative that the victim have MORE power than
(or at least EQUAL power to) the predator.

Innocent, unarmed people have been eaten, while they live.
Man has gained dominion over his environment by TOOLMAKING.
When faced with an emergency, one needs the requisite tool.
Its ABSENCE can result in a painful end.

1) There are no wild animals in the UK capable of eating any person larger than a new-born baby. Hence, no guns needed.
2) If the vast majority of criminals in the UK don't have guns, why do the public need them? The reason burglars here don't have guns is because they don't need them. They can break into a house and threaten the residents effectively with knives or bats, as the residents themselves don't have guns, because the crimanals don't have them - do you see how it works? We've managed so far to avoid the spiral of gun ownership that you lot have got yourselves into for that very reason.
3) The correct way to address a duke is "Your Grace", or "My Lord Duke". "Your Highness" would be used for a prince or princess.

If you had the chance of removing ALL guns from society - police, criminals, terrorists & the general public - would you take it? Or would you prefer things the way they are?

I have confidence that u will BECOME a prince.

I prefer that everyone who can lift a gun
and who has learned how to safely handle guns, be well armed;
perhaps legally mandatory, or tax benefits.

Violent recidivistic criminals shud be removed n isolated
from polite society; either in secure prisons,
or the olde Botany Bay principle.

Grand duke, save your fingers some work. There's as little point in bashing your head against a brick wall as there is in trying to talk sense to a conservative (read Nazi). Just sit back and watch the US dissolve under the weight of their greed and violence.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have confidence that u will BECOME a prince.

I prefer that everyone who can lift a gun
and who has learned how to safely handle guns, be well armed;
perhaps legally mandatory, or tax benefits.

Violent recidivistic criminals shud be removed n isolated
from polite society; either in secure prisons,
or the olde Botany Bay principle.

Thanks for the promotion!

The chance of me being shot in the UK is less than the chance of me being run-over crossing the street. I therefore do not need a gun.

The only reason I posted in this topic was because I thought a debate of this nature would be interested in the point of view of someone living outside of a gun culture.

I still maintain that if guns are not needed, why have them?
You obviously feel you need them, so have them!
=======
THANK U.
=======

Incidently I have actually made enquiries before about joining a shooting club, as I would like to try sports shooting, but the cost of the rifles put me off. Maybe when I'm rich and old with time on my hands...

Whenever a citizen falls victim to the attacks
of a criminal or an animal, he needs fine quality emergency equipment
(swiftly).

* Not sure of the relevance, but I agree with medical treatment of the injured! It's been about 500 years since any man-eating animals stalked these fair lands. *

Because of the drastic increase of crime in England since
guns were banned, I predict that u will have a re-surgence of guns there,
with a resultant "gun culture".

Just a rough guess - 5, 20, 50? I'm mainly curious as to why you need more than a couple to defend yourself or your property? Don't get me wrong, if you want loads of guns and your country's laws allow you, then have as many as you like.

As I asked earlier, if you could magically get rid of all the guns in the world - including military/police/criminals/anyone, would you do it?