The U.N. Gun Ban Treaty - Gun Owners Beware

Maybe you should research your statistics. Of the 30000+ gun deaths in the US each year, less than 200 are justifiable homicides by people acting in self defense. The self defense argument is just more stupid drivel.

BTW, we don't need to research OUR gun laws. We live here and well aware of them.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

oralloy wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Gun nuts should NEVER be permitted to make policy.

Bigoted name calling is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

I respond but in kind.

Nope. I did not post any bigoted arguments for you to respond in kind to. I try to avoid bigotry as much as possible. It is easy for me, as I am not a bigot.

dlowan wrote:

You are calling for mass murder.

Hardly. I am calling for a military strike against foreigners who apply pressure on us to violate our civil rights.

dlowan wrote:

Show me an example of reasoned argument from you, and I will respond in kind...

Waiting....

I engaged in a reasoned conversation with Walter Hinteler throughout the last page or two.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Just found this recent article in the NROThe British Gun Closet

Quote:
Overall, Britain now suffers from a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., and has reverted to its medieval status of being substantially more dangerous than most of the European continent. (Continental gun laws are generally more repressive than in the U.S., but more liberal than in England.)

That is purest nonsense as well.

Well, I think they had a higher violent crime rate than the US before their gun ban, so the higher rate isn't entirely attributed to the ban, and I don't know how continental Europe compares.

But it seems reasonable to point out that they have a higher violent crime rate than the US.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Maybe you should research your statistics. Of the 30000+ gun deaths in the US each year, less than 200 are justifiable homicides by people acting in self defense. The self defense argument is just more stupid drivel.

BTW, we don't need to research OUR gun laws. We live here and well aware of them.

If you deny that many types of guns are banned in Australia, or that people are required to show a need before they get a gun, or that self defense does not count as a need, then you may not be as aware of your laws as you think.

And people everywhere have the right to self-defense. I do not see human rights as stupid drivel.

0 Replies

oralloy

Either you can't or you wont understand ... figures, datas, sources ...

0 Replies

Waste of time Walter.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Maybe you should research your statistics. Of the 30000+ gun deaths in the US each year, less than 200 are justifiable homicides by people acting in self defense. The self defense argument is just more stupid drivel.

BTW, we don't need to research OUR gun laws. We live here and well aware of them.

If you deny that many types of guns are banned in Australia, or that people are required to show a need before they get a gun, or that self defense does not count as a need, then you may not be as aware of your laws as you think.

And people everywhere have the right to self-defense. I do not see human rights as stupid drivel.

I don't deny that many types of guns are banned. What the hell would anyone need a uzi for?

Yes they do have to show a need. What's the problem there?

Self defense does not qualify as a need, and even US stats show that ownership of a firearm is not an effective self defense measure, and I've never met anyone who needs a gun for self defense. I have never needed one and can't imagine ever needing one, unless our streets become as violent as the US, which I certainly hope will never happen. Because we're not obsessed like you are, we don't see the ownership of weapons as a human rights issue. But obviously anyone who doesn't hold your self righteous opinion is wrong, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond. There's little chance of common sense ever entering your skull.

0 Replies

Many people in the U.S. own guns to put food on the table, as well as for personal protection.

That said, the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting. It guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, for whatever purpose.

We really only need one gun law. And that is that it is illegal to commit a crime using a gun.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

I don't deny that many types of guns are banned. What the hell would anyone need a uzi for?

I never claimed that anyone "needed" one. There are many things in life we don't need. I expect that if I had to "demonstrate a need" before I were allowed to vote, I'd never have the opportunity to vote.

In my country, the fact that my gun rights still exist means that there is no requirement for me to "show a need" before I get one.

Wilso wrote:

Yes they do have to show a need. What's the problem there?

When people have to "show a need" before they can get a gun, and most people can't show a need, I consider that to effectively be a ban.

I am not sure there is a "problem". I merely pointed out what your laws do, and that it is effectively a ban except for a few privileged people, and then you started objecting to my observation for some reason.

Wilso wrote:

and even US stats show that ownership of a firearm is not an effective self defense measure,

Not really. The fact that many people here choose to use guns when they commit a homicide, has no bearing on the question of whether guns are effective tools for self-defense.

Wilso wrote:

Because we're not obsessed like you are, we don't see the ownership of weapons as a human rights issue.

Ownership of guns isn't a human rights issue. Self-defense is a human rights issue.

The right to own guns was a *common law* issue in your country before a law was passed that superseded that right. It is a Constitutional issue in my country.

Wilso wrote:

But obviously anyone who doesn't hold your self righteous opinion is wrong, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond. There's little chance of common sense ever entering your skull.

That was childish.

0 Replies

way i see it is law or no law
if someone wants to get a gun and go kill someone they can..
here in uk we have similar laws to oz, cos of incidences like the hungerford massacre and the dunblane massacre....where guys went crazy and shot loads of people...

here we cant even carry knives that are more than 3inches long...

yet i could go buy a gun tomorrow if i wanted from a back street dealer and be killing right away

all our laws didnt stop a 14 year old girl been gunned down last week...

figures on gun crime in UK if you stats dude are interested .. i know u all like yer figures : Gun Crime Rises - But Killings Are Down
and
canada has the same amount of guns to the US, it said so on 'bowling for columbine' yet they have far less homicides....
i wouldnt worry cjhsa, guns are part of america and i guess they will stay that way....
ive fired weapons when i was in the army cadets
i liked it...
but i never like the idea of having to shoot a living thing with one...

im neutral on this issue as the law has never stopped anyone doing anything if they are really determined....

its just a thing to keep the masses feeling safe and secure...

lalala

i know where to go if i want to fire some guns though.....

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy

Either you can't or you wont understand ... figures, datas, sources ...

The fact that I wanted to compare police reports in America with police reports in England means I don't understand?

Were I to compare crime survey results in England with police reports in the US, it would skew the results in my favor, as crime surveys tend to result in higher levels of reported crime.

0 Replies

Nothing you've said makes the slightest bit of sense. You'll twist any argument to your agenda. The original purpose of "the right to bear arms" in the US was to protect yourselves from the British monarch. It's really rather sad that half your nation is still living in the war of independence, especially since the other half seems to be stuck in the civil war. I've just realised why I haven't been posting on this site any more. It's because of obsessed nut cases like you.

0 Replies

oh i see it all our fault is it Wink

0 Replies

chill wilso man
dont let it/them get to you dude
there are all types all over
we cant agree with everyone
dont let people with different opinions spoil your enjoyment of a2k
everybody is stuck in their ways
let em be..
i know how u feel
i simply ignore it and get on with finding weird stories

0 Replies

I don't know who exactly you're calling an obsessed nut case, but guns and hunting are a big issue in the U.S. election this year. Why do you think ol' John-boy went out and whacked a goose with a borrowed shotgun? Fact is, he has voted FOR bills that would have banned not only the gun he used but the AMMO TOO.

Plus he's already pretty much stated that the U.N. could probably run the country better than he could.

So as a gun owner I fear Kerry and the U.N. I don't want to become a criminal for owning something my father won at a Duck's Unlimited raffle, or because I like to hunt birds with a (god forbid) semi-automatic shotgun.

0 Replies

each to there own i say
plenty of space/room/countries on the planet...

0 Replies

Col Man wrote:

figures on gun crime in UK if you stats dude are interested .. i know u all like yer figures : Gun Crime Rises - But Killings Are Down

The reporter made a misleading headline.

The article says *gun* killings are down. It does not report what is going on with total killings.

When gun bans are enacted, a much lower percentage of homicides involve guns, but the overall rate of killing drops only slightly. This results in politicians trumpeting the drop in gun related deaths in the hope that it will fool people into believing that it correlates to a significant drop in actual deaths.

Col Man wrote:

canada has the same amount of guns to the US, it said so on 'bowling for columbine' yet they have far less homicides....

New Zealand and Switzerland have common gun ownership without the large numbers of homicides too, and some countries have lots of homicides without many guns.

I like the Switzerland model, as their militiamen keeping automatic rifles at home are exactly the sort of thing that was envisioned when the Second Amendment was written.

0 Replies

ok

i just was passing and i saw that news article so i thought id post it
i think the bottom line is guns exist and people are going to use them
and
people kill people too
sometimes the two will get together
Smile

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

The original purpose of "the right to bear arms" in the US was to protect yourselves from the British monarch.

Not exactly. The reason is that Patrick Henry was demagoging the Constitution saying that the federal government would be another King James II, and would try to disarm the militia and impose a standing army.

They put the Second (and Third) Amendment in to quell those fears. The Second Amendment is essentially the same thing found in the English Bill of Rights, just modified to apply to "the people" instead of to Protestants. It protects people's right to keep militia arms at home, and to use them as part of the militia.

Wilso wrote:

Nothing you've said makes the slightest bit of sense. You'll twist any argument to your agenda. . . . It's really rather sad that half your nation is still living in the war of independence, especially since the other half seems to be stuck in the civil war. I've just realised why I haven't been posting on this site any more. It's because of obsessed nut cases like you.

Yawn.

0 Replies

UN Gun Ban Treaty

yawn...

0 Replies

The U.N. Gun Ban Treaty - Gun Owners Beware

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know