I gotta call BS. No self-respecting American would be caught dead in lederhosen. 'Cept mebbe those freaks up in Wisconsin, but can you blame 'em? Heck, they don't even have a decent football team anymore... nothing left to do but eat cheese, drink beer, and wear women's clothing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, you know.


OK, I'll give you that, but it's not "Gun Control" in the same sense you were advocating before (i.e. a ban on guns.) It's only "gun control" in the same sense that having to take a driving exam to get a license to drive is "car control."

empahsis mine. i wouldnt call that a success. a success would be a decrease of the rate of violent crime.

anyway, i wont get into details now because i go climbing in 45min and i still havent eaten or packed.

but i think that comparing usa with other countries that have stricter gun laws is comparing apples and oranges. why? because of the numeber of (legal and illegal) guns in usa. and if you made a law that requried citizens to return their guns, you can bet that the honest ppl would be the only ones to abide by it. criminals would happily keep theirs.

so while im am against pro-gun-laws, i strongly believe that implementing stricter laws in the usa would be a BIG mistake. it would just make a bigger mess than it already is.

So you figure the W.H.O. has a secret agenda? What would that be?

Where would you pursue your gun deaths stats, the N.R.A. or other gun company sponsered groups?

Really, what does it matter if the deaths are criminal/self defence.

Are you implying that these other countries are with higher crime rates (not true) because people do not own guns?

Are you implying that the USA is less violent country because of guns, less violent than any of the above countries?

Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen?

If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)

Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example...

CR doesn't even have an army, the police force is a joke, we have a pretty bad immigration (illegal) problem and lots of guns (getting a legal CCW is easy here)... guess what, very low homicide rates too...

-F

If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)

If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)

Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example...

Apparently the sarcasm and humor got lost in translation.

As well as knives, Devon and Cornwall police also received an 8lb anti-tank rocket launcher, known as a "tankbuster", which has a range of up to 350 metres.

A force spokesman said: "The amnesty is for all weapons and if someone wants to get rid of a rocket launcher, that's fine by us."

I have lived in California, and I considered getting a gun when I lived there.

Its always amuses me when someone that seems to be against the ownership of firearms for personal protection finally comes out and says something like this:



So when its your ass on the line it just might be okay to own a firearm, eh?

Awesome! danooguy is back and bastardizing and cherry picking quotes again.

And before the NRA talking points book get's opened up I am very skepitcal of gun control and would never suppoert "BANNING GUNS!!!!!"

Or, we can just keeping banning weapons all the way back to the "club" used by cave men. When you take the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens you have guaranteed that society will be dominated by the physical strong and superior. The small and weak will be forced to defend themselves with inferior weapons and the table will be set for rape and pillage.

It's already happening in England where knife violence has increased at an alarming rate. Who has a better chance of winning a knife fight? Someone physically more superior. My wife, your girlfriend, our parents have very little chance in hand to hand combat againsts maurading thieves. A gun is the only weapon that gives everyone the same chance to win a battle.

Mixed feelings on this European news tidbit, about how soccer hooligans are using cellphones in lieu of knives and crowbars. On the one hand, it’s great to see outmoded gadgets put to some use, apart from cluttering up closets and landfills. On the other, I’ll bet that getting pegged in the forehead by a Nokia handset hurts like nobody’s business. Though I guess that serves some wankers right for rooting for Blackburn Rovers.

Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is?

We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment.

There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much.

Mad Dogs and Englishmen

By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

June 17, 2006; Page A11
With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country,
the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of
cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with
a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60
other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage
girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court
appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all
the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system.

Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system
promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using
excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a
conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long
sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one
burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his
rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars.
The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early.

Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of
youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear.
Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his
burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and,
brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he
returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not
good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in
prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the
toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an
arsonist or thief.

How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated
as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953
Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for
an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was
automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until
proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The
object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and
it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The
government countered that the public should be discouraged "from
going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty
of society to protect them."

The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet
successive governments have insisted protection be left to the
professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms
to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list
along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited
self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later.

Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for
protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they
have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons
are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are
incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve
just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are
overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime
soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early
to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory
life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months.

The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by
other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and
Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages
without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the
Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less
serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic. Among crimes
not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault,
harassment and non-domestic burglary.

As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding
to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley
Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home
after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her
estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them
had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past
all help.

To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been
initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003
session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against
double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be
retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward.
Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden
easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord
Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil
cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence
was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no
such requirement here."

Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient
prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from
murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking
and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new
act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried
and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be
tried again, and again.

To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to
use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to
introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials
is to be reduced. Still, the government has helped the homeowner by
sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who
injure themselves while breaking in."

It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of
their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and
left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both
worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of
letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would
be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into
the prisons and the criminals to be let out."

Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author
of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard
University Press, 2002).

Hmm... really?

Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is?

We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment.

There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much.

Of course, when I'm naked, I'm always packing heat. My concealed weapon is indeed dangerous, at least as far as the pretty ladies need be concerned. How you doin'?

[..]Besides, its not the muggings and rapes that scare us, it is our own government. [..]

Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen?