God, Guns, and American pickup trucks
- Jack
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
If we become anything like England you will be punished like these people who were trying to defend them self's
� In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
� In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
� In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
� In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
� In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
� In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
� In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
re: the extreme talking points posted.The situation is not the problem, people are the problem. "Gun control" should be based on the individual, not the situation as there are many different people in any given situation.
Proposing that everyone carry a gun (including felons and mentally retarded folks) is an extreme, because they're likely to harm someone. Proposing people be allowed to carry to a university, or church does not increase the likelihood of harm. Actually, like the study I posted shows, it will DECREASE harm.
... When the Arizona Legislature wants it to be legal for ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon, without a permit, isn't that extreme? And don't we have to figure out where to draw the line? When a legislative body starts thinking this way, it's no longer a fantasy world, is it?
- Jack
- Jack
As I said, you can find counter examples everywhere.
Are NO gun restrictions good for every locality? I'm still waiting for thoughts from some of our members in law enforcement. The fact that they haven't entered this discussion seems a bit significant to me.
- Jack
To which argument? I would think since you have been asking for their opinion if one of them had read this and agreed with you they would have chimed in.
I think you're right, and, I think the violent crime stats are pretty low in both States. We COULD argue that it's too cold there for much of the year and not many people see a need to move to either one, so they don't see a big influx of out of work, uneducated and unskilled people. Probably not much of a drug business in either State too.
As I said, you can find counter examples everywhere.
Are NO gun restrictions good for every locality? I'm still waiting for thoughts from some of our members in law enforcement. The fact that they haven't entered this discussion seems a bit significant to me.
- Jack
As I said, you can find counter examples everywhere.
Are NO gun restrictions good for every locality? I'm still waiting for thoughts from some of our members in law enforcement. The fact that they haven't entered this discussion seems a bit significant to me.
- Jack
What I am a fan of, is stiffer penalties for commiting a crime with a gun (or any other weapon, for that matter), but relaxing the restrictions on gun ownership and the carrying of a gun. A friend of mine (who we've adopted as a sister) is a cop here with the RCMP. She doesn't really see things my way, when it comes to guns. My sister is also an RCMP officer, but she doesn't believe in guns at all, go figure.
A guy I work with says: "I'd be fine seeing you (he means me) carrying a handgun, but not everyone". I say, yeah, but if a criminal wants to carry a gun, nobody is going to stop him, so shouldn't we give everyone a chance to defend themselves from that criminal?
This debate is ongoing, you guys have your second amendment. While it's not bullet proof, when you take a politician's "interpretation" into account, it's a far cry from what we're stuck with here in Canada.
I'm pretty sure that they, like me, are not in favor of "gun control". But, since it is so easy to be misunderstood (witness this thread) they may be choosing to stay out of it. But I suspect they aren't really keen on "universal gun ownership" and "carry permission". I know that's where my hangups lie.
- Jack
im not totallly against guns, i dont own a gun and ill never will thats just me. i understand if your that parinoid that you need a weapon to protect your family fine. but do you really need an ak 47 to do so? i think its just a lil overboard on the weapons your allowed to have
What difference does it make what kind of gun you kill a bad guy with?
Whatever works and is safe. You could get lucky with a 22 or your could shoot them 6 times with a AK-47, they are still dead either way!
That is the dumbest argument that anti gun people have.
Ok back to the topic since I finally read this thing after being able to see the video.
I may drive over just to shake this guy's hand.
Oh and by the way. That video shows why they don't usually interview smart rural people on conservative topics.
We put up too good of an argument. (Not that I would do that well.
)
I may drive over just to shake this guy's hand.
Oh and by the way. That video shows why they don't usually interview smart rural people on conservative topics.
We put up too good of an argument. (Not that I would do that well.
)
Putting a law in place to forbid carry and possession, is just a "feel good" law that puts our officers at greater risk, by giving them a false sense of security. You want them afraid of having a gun pulled on them, not because of the stress, but because it keeps them on their toes and more likely to react appropriately to a lethal force situation.
I would rather believe that everyone has a gun and get to go home alive at the end of the night, than believe that people are listening to a law and get caught unaware by a person who doesn't care and is ready to shoot me.
what gives you the right to end someones life, and dont say cause their "threating me". i was just expessing my opinion(not arguing) that i think its a il much to be allowed the higher powered weapons. you dont like my opinion... meh
Some people call it their God given right, some people call it freedom of protection, I call it just plain RIGHT.
I have EVERY right to kill someone that threatens me with deadly weapon.
And they don't even need a deadly weapon if they are in my house illegally with my wife and 2 year old son. Of course you have to use some common sense here but if someone comes into my house with malicious intent, I have every right to kill them, whether it be with a baseball bat, butter knife, or a rocket propelled grenade!
What gives them the right to put me in the situation that I have to make that decision? If they threaten me or my family, or they break into my house they will get shot no questions asked and I won't feel bad about it later. Also I now understand why it was so easy to take weapons away from Canadians, we arent "allowed" anything it is a RIGHT.




