Discussion on the BBC Regarding Gun Legislation

[girlbug2]

Everybody thinks they're normal. It is the rare madman that even suspects the truth.

 

[Empty Hands]

Everybody thinks they're normal. It is the rare madman that even suspects the truth.

Oh, I'm crazy as a shithouse rat. It's the rest of you who make me look normal.

 

[elder999]

Everybody thinks they're normal. It is the rare madman that even suspects the truth.

Lady, I'm mad and proud of it. In fact, I'm a card-carrying member of the International Society of Mad Scientists, and a two-time winner of the Cracked Globe, also known as the Fools, I'll destroy you all!!!! award.

Bwahaha.......haha....and all that..:lfao:

In all seriousness, gun control has always been about controlling the populace, mad or not. In the meantime, discussions like that one do nothing to alleviate the tragedy.

Nothing could, really.....

 

[Tez3]

I shall then address American liberals as statist/socialist communist.

European liberals as "the confused ones."

Knucklehead, your posts seem to be to all intents and purposes deliberate trolling. You are making statements that seem, if taken at face value, to be insulting the intelligence of the posters here.

Either that or your ignorance is actually quite real. If it is you should know that we have the Right, the Centre and the Left here in politics, The Right is the Conservatives/Tories, the Centre is the Liberals and the Left is the Labour/Socialists. Our present govenment is a Conservative and Liberal Democratic one. The Labour government, known to you as the Socialists were defeated in the last election. Liberals here aren't left leaning at all, many famous leaders including Winston Churchill have been Liberals but you see most posters here know that, which is why they don't mention it. They also know that we don't tell Americans how to run their country, I've never expressed an opinion on how I think American guns laws should be...that's because I don't have an opinion on it! I really have no knowledge on which to base an opinion.


The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have said there will be no discussions about changes to gun laws until after the inquiries and investigations are finished. If there's lessons to be learned on how the present laws are enforced or whether the laws need chaging either way is a discussion for the future.

The general opinion so far among police officers and professionals is that, frankly, there is nothing that could have been done to prevent this particular tragedy, nothing at all. That's hard on the families of those affected I know, who want a reason why their loved ones died but the truth is a man snapped and they died. No one could have known and no one could have prevented it. Everyone says at one point 'oh I'm going to kill so and so, they've just....' nine out of ten never mean it and it's forgotten, there's no one here who hasn't said it. Everyone has problems, everyone has stress, some go over the edge some don't. There was no way of knowing in advance that this man was going to snap despite people all now coming out of the woodwork. It seems he was attacked a couple of years ago and was knocked out, some are saying he had a brain injury, some say it was fear of going to prison for tax evasion, some say it was a dispute over his not dead yet mothers will, but and this is a very big but, no one could have known any, all or none of these things drove him over the top. the fact he was a licensed gun holder actually makes no diffeence, it made it easier for him to kill people..perhaps but if he was intent on killing anything would have done, a brick round a head, a knife, iron bar etc absolutely anything.

Does banning guns control a population? No, it doesn't, governments have been overthrown without the majority of the populace being armed. The Berlin Wall fell without the Germans being armed, here we aren't afraid to take to the streets, look up Poll Tax riots. We've just kicked the Labour government out though it's another argument whether thats for the better or not lol.

Every country is different, perhaps our laws do work this is only the third mass shooting in over twenty five years or so, they are very rare events, perhaps all the more shocking for that which makes people have that 'knee jerk' reaction from boths sides of the gun lobby. What is needed is cool thinking not troll-like 'dur' thoughts), cool, sharp minds considering the laws not emotional lobbyists or cliched, trite commentators with headlines to make.

 

[elder999]

Does banning guns control a population? No, it doesn't, governments have been overthrown without the majority of the populace being armed. The Berlin Wall fell without the Germans being armed, .

I think I need to make a distinction between what "gun control does," and "gun control's intent" here, Irene. Without being insulting or meaning to ruffle anyone's feathers, the best example is the Nazi takeover of Germany and its surrounding countries. The Nazis benefitted in Germany from gun control laws passed by the Weimar Republic, and passed more weapons laws in 1938 that further restricted gun ownership, especially to Jews and other "non-citizens." They further benefitted from surrounding countries restrictions on firearms ownership when they took over those countries.

THe website of the Jews for the Preservation of FIrearms Ownership has several interesting articles, not the least is the linked one that is about the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968-linking it to the Nazi laws of 1938 in the person of the author, Senator Thomas Dodd, a Nuremberg prosecutor who asked for the nazi Weapons law of 1938 to be translated before he began writing the Gun Control Act of 1968, which a prominent anti-gun author is quoted as saying was not intended to control guns, but blacks. Indeed, our nation's earliest gun laws-restricting or prohibiting sale and ownership to various minorities, before and after the Civil war (blacks, American Indians, Chinese) were about controlling the populace, and not guns.

Gun control is about controlling people, not guns.

EDIT: And, no, I am not implying that "if the Jews had been armed, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened." The key with takeovers is that they are takeovers. The Nazis controlled everything. Just as the corporations soon will here-and in your country too, I'm afraid....

 

[Tez3]

I think I need to make a distinction between what "gun control does," and "gun control's intent" here, Irene. Without being insulting or meaning to ruffle anyone's feathers, the best example is the Nazi takeover of Germany and its surrounding countries. The Nazis benefitted in Germany from gun control laws passed by the Weimar Republic, and passed more weapons laws in 1938 that further restricted gun ownership, especially to Jews and other "non-citizens." They further benefitted from surrounding countries restrictions on firearms ownership when they took over those countries.

THe website of the Jews for the Preservation of FIrearms Ownership has several interesting articles, not the least is the linked one that is about the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968-linking it to the Nazi laws of 1938 in the person of the author, Senator Thomas Dodd, a Nuremberg prosecutor who asked for the nazi Weapons law of 1938 to be translated before he began writing the Gun Control Act of 1968, which a prominent anti-gun author is quoted as saying was not intended to control guns, but blacks. Indeed, our nation's earliest gun laws-restricting or prohibiting sale and ownership to various minorities, before and after the Civil war (blacks, American Indians, Chinese) were about controlling the populace, and not guns.

Gun control is about controlling people, not guns.

And having guns would have saved the Jews?
The Jews at that time weren't allowed anything, they weren't allowed to work, go to school, use the hospitals, public transport, abide in certain areas, in fact they weren't allowed to live. Picking out one law that restricted them and saying that one was the important one is hardly true. the whole country just about ( plus a few others) was against the Jews (as well as the Communists, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, handicapped etc).

The intent of laws is never the same as what actually happens. The subject of guns here in everyday life other than occasions like this is not the subject of conversations, debates and strong feelings it is in America. People here don't care very much one way or the other until something happens, it dies down again ( you won't here much about the Cumbrian case after a couple of weeks) and people go back to not caring. The gun thing is perhaps an American passion not European. We simply don't care enough about guns.

We've never banned any specific group from holding weapons, perhaps if our governments do pass laws to control people it is at least is an equal opportunity banner as everyone is banned!

 

[elder999]

And having guns would have saved the Jews?

Well, no, Irene. I edited as much before you posted this. :lol:

We simply don't care enough about guns.

On that, I'll agree with you. :lfao:

We've never banned any specific group from holding weapons, perhaps if our governments do pass laws to control people it is at least is an equal opportunity banner as everyone is banned!

Oh, and this country hasn't since the 19th century, either, AFAIK. The GCA of 1968 merely targeted ways that people could obtain and own guns-effectively setting up a mechanism whereby the government can come and collect-as in confiscate-all of our guns-or those of a select grou, if they so choose, like rioting populaces in Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles that very year.....

And so, someday, they shall...........

 

[Tez3]

Well, no, Irene. I edited as much before you posted this. :lol:




On that, I'll agree with you. :lfao:



Oh, and this country hasn't since the 19th century, either, AFAIK. The GCA of 1968 merely targeted ways that people could obtain and own guns-effectively setting up a mechanism whereby the government can come and collect-as in confiscate-all of our guns-or those of a select grou, if they so choose, like rioting populaces in Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles that very year.....

And so, someday, they shall...........

As it's such a contentious and emotional subject in America is there a way of finding out for sure how the Americans want the gun issue to be treated and then enact laws in accordance? Such as having a referendum, yeah or nay? Or would having different states with different laws prove that to be impossible? perhaps a referendum in each state? Maybe you don't have the laws to hold a referendum?

 

[elder999]

As it's such a contentious and emotional subject in America is there a way of finding out for sure how the Americans want the gun issue to be treated and then enact laws in accordance? Such as having a referendum, yeah or nay? Or would having different states with different laws prove that to be impossible? perhaps a referendum in each state? Maybe you don't have the laws to hold a referendum?

It's not at all contentious. Last year, in this Gallup poll, American support for stricter gun laws was lower than ever-it's been running about 50-50 since 1990, with some saying they're too strict, some saying not strict enough, and a majority saying they're fine the way they are. In truth, there's almost no difficulty getting what you want unless you live in a few more restrictive areas, or you want a machine gun...(I want a Thompson, dammit! :lfao: )

Why would we hold a referendum? It's part and parcel of our founding documents, the highest law in the land:

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.-2nd Amendment to the Constitution (the pertinent part, anyway :lol: )

And it's been upheld over and over again to be an individual right, by the highest court in the land.....

 

[Tez3]

It's not at all contentious. Last year, in this Gallup poll, American support for stricter gun laws was lower than ever-it's been running about 50-50 since 1990, with some saying they're too strict, some saying not strict enough, and a majority saying they're fine the way they are. In truth, there's almost no difficulty getting what you want unless you live in a few more restrictive areas, or you want a machine gun...(I want a Thompson, dammit! :lfao: )

Why would we hold a referendum? It's part and parcel of our founding documents, the highest law in the land:



And it's been upheld over and over again to be an individual right, by the highest court in the land.....

If it's that unaninous why is there so much dissent lol! If people think the laws are fine it shouldn't be such an emotive and contentious subject, it would just 'be'.
A referendum gives the government no choice in what they should do, no fluffing around the edges, no excuses, it's straight down the middle. Elections are fine, you vote for the politician who matches closest your views on most things, a referendum asks one question only and gives one answer. You don't give the politicians a chance to smudge their answers.
It's good sometimes for the people to speak but of course a democracy means only you are voting for the people who will make the decisions not for you to make the decisions!

 

[Archangel M]

There is "dissent" because the modern media allows a vocal minority to have a platform that gives them more recognition and clout than they deserve.

 

[Tez3]

There is "dissent" because the modern media allows a vocal majority to have a platform that gives them more recognition and clout than they deserve.

But it sells though doesn't it, both sides will watch the television and buy the newspapers and both sides can have equally vocal groups so give the quiet majority a voice!

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If it's that unaninous why is there so much dissent lol! If people think the laws are fine it shouldn't be such an emotive and contentious subject, it would just 'be'.
A referendum gives the government no choice in what they should do, no fluffing around the edges, no excuses, it's straight down the middle. Elections are fine, you vote for the politician who matches closest your views on most things, a referendum asks one question only and gives one answer. You don't give the politicians a chance to smudge their answers.

Only certain States have the referendum ability. About half do not. That means that there is no direct way to tell out elected officials what to do. And there is no ability to do so at the Federal level.

Either way, we have the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The only problem is that our Supreme Court has utilized its position, not to determine legallity, but to put forth its own political
agenda, thus subverting the Constitution in the first place.

And although there are those that don't believe it, I do think that there is a systematic and intentional whithering away of our rights.

It's good sometimes for the people to speak but of course a democracy means only you are voting for the people who will make the decisions not for you to make the decisions!

You are incorrect. In a democracy, one votes directly on the issues presented before the electorate. It is in a republic which one votes for people to "vote" for you.

 

[Langenschwert]

EDIT: And, no, I am not implying that "if the Jews had been armed, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened." The key with takeovers is that they are takeovers. The Nazis controlled everything. Just as the corporations soon will here-and in your country too, I'm afraid....

Remeber that those Jews who armed themselves made a hell of a lot of trouble for the Nazis:

On February 16, 1943, Heinrich Himmler ordered that the Warsaw ghetto be exterminated on April 19. The plan was to give Hitler a Judenrein Warsaw as a present for his April 20 birthday.
On that night of April 19, the Warsaw Jews partook of the Passover Seder. Since September 1939, they had eaten the bitter herbs of slavery. Now, they were drinking the wine of freedom.
The Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, wrote in his diary, “the joke cannot last much longer, but it shows what the Jews are capable of when they have arms in their hands.”[13]
The Nazis brought in tanks. The Jews were ready with explosives. First one tank and then a second were immobilized in the middle of the street, in flames, their crews burned alive. Ringelblum recalled:
Now the fighters as well as the non-combatant Jews who have crawled out of their hiding places have reached the pinnacle of jubilation….According to one eyewitness account, “The faces who only yesterday reflected terror and despair now shone with an unusual joy which is difficult to describe. This was a joy free from all personal motives, a joy imbued with the pride that that ghetto was fighting.”
Another eyewitness describes the confusion in the German ranks: “There runs a German soldier shrieking like an insane one, the helmet on his head on fire. Another one shouts madly ‘Juden…Waffen…Juden… Waffen!’”[14] [Jews…weapons!]

And good for them.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Langenschwert]

And although there are those that don't believe it, I do think that there is a systematic and intentional whithering away of our rights.

Of course there is. We have the same thing here in Canada, whose Liberal party has a deliberate disarmament agenda. The Conservative Party pays lip service to keeping guns in the hands of Canadians, but only because it's important to a lot of their rural supporters. We have no actual "Libertarian" party here... just neo-fascists (Liberal and New Democrat) and corporate toadies (Conservatives). None of them have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Tez3]

Remeber that those Jews who armed themselves made a hell of a lot of trouble for the Nazis:



And good for them.

Best regards,

-Mark

This is a whole big thing to get into and frankly I'm not. There were Resistance fighters all over Europe even some Germans, it has nothing to do with gun laws and totally nothing to do with Cumbria.

 

[Ken Morgan]

We have no actual "Libertarian" party here... and corporate toadies (Conservatives). None of them have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Well no, we do have a libertarian party here, it just gets its *** kicked in every election. Most of us libertarians are with the Conservatives, in fact we make up a huge proportion of the party in Ontario.

The corporate "toadies" to which you refer are traditionally the Liberals. Until the donation rules changed a few years ago, the vast majority of Liberal donations, dollar wise, were from companys and company owners. By contrast the CPC had 95% of its donations from individuals, most of which were under $50 each.

It was the conservatives who brought in the rules that no companies or unions can donation to political parties. And believe me, Elections Canada enforces this to the letter.

 

[Sukerkin]

The following is a rather good 'post' that lays out one side of the gun control 'argument' very well. The lass he refers to is well known, to me at least and I've previously posted a link here at MT to a video of her giving testimony at some hearing about gun law.

The poster of this text is one of the contributors over at the BBC blog on the issue, so these are not my words - I do rather agree with him tho' (and paragraphed the post as it was 'mono-bloc'):

==========================================================

"Greetings from America. Of course what happened was a tragedy, but let me offer a couple of real life situations to you good British folks to consider, and maybe give a little thought to, as you think about how you would like to see your government react.

First off, let me say that I love Britain and her people (my wife of nearly 20 years is English), so please spare me the "if you are posting from the US or are a foreigner, Mind your own Goddamn business" treatment, as one of your posters so politely put it.

First example: In Texas several years ago, a lunatic similar to yours, went into a restaurant and started shooting people. I can't remember how many people were killed that day, but it was quite a few. One woman who survived, had come in to have dinner with her parents. Her parents were not so fortunate as she was, they both died. As the woman cowered under a tablecloth see could see the murderer walking causally around the restaurant as he fired. She knew that she could have easily shot the man and stopped the killings if she had only had her handgun in her purse. Instead she could only curse the laws that forbid her from carrying her gun. She had dutifully obeyed those laws, left her gun in her car, and as a result had watched helplessly as her parents died along with the others. After that day, the woman vowed that she would do all she could to prevent something like that from happening again. She set about working to change the laws in Texas to allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. She is today one of the country's most prominate gun rights activist and partly due to her hard work most states in the union allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons.

This has proven to be strong deterrent to crime and the documented instances of everyday people exercising this right to stop a crime in progress or prevent a crime that was about to take place, now number literally in the millions. If you find it incredible that the knowledge that the average person may be armed is enough to make a criminal think twice, here is an example to prove the point. Florida has been a popular destination for European tourist for many years now, but several years back that popularity among Europeans was seerly curtailed in the wake of a rash of robbery and murder that seemed to be specifically targeting people driving rental cars. When some of the killers were finally caught, they were asked why they had been targeting people driving rental cars, they said that they knew those people were likely to be unarmed tourist whereas local people were likely to be armed. Simple as that. (At the time rental cars prominently displayed the fact that they were rental cars via bumper stickers and the like and that practice was stopped immediately as a result).

Personally I have carried a gun for practically my entire adult life, and have prevented a crime being committed against me on four separate occasions. (note, I do live in Atlanta, Georgia which is one of the most crime ridden cities in the US, so my experiences would not be typical). The Point is that citizens being armed is a positive check on crime and the right, or in the case of the British the "privilege", to own guns to hunt, control pests and whatnot, is totally irrelevant to this issue.
While it is certainly true that a homicidal killer, like the one you had in Cumbria, is not motivated along the same lines that the average criminal is, the principal of the average citizen being armed is exactly the same. A case in point: recently here in my home state of Georgia a disturbed individual showed up at a construction site and began shooting at people. The man fired several times, one man was injured, but when one of the construction workers retrieved a handgun from his car and shot the man, the incident was instantly over without further loss of life.

Surely it would not take a great deal of imagination on the part of even the most sincere "Ban all Guns" British subjects among you to picture what the outcome could have been in Cumbria, had just one of the killer's victims been able to shoot back. If any of you are by now (hopefully) beginning to think that this idea of average people being armed might bear further consideration, please Google Kennesaw Georgia and read up on their rather unique approach to this issue. Kennesaw is a small community just outside of Atlanta that began to experience a crime wave that spilled over from the big city back in the 80's. Their solution was a simple one. They did hire more police, or install cameras every where. They simply passed an ordinance that "REQUIRED EVERY HOUSHOLD TO OWN A GUN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OCCUPANTS" Can you guess what the result was? Far from being the "wild west" scenario that one of the other posters hysterically prophesied would be the outcome of everyone being armed, the crime rate plummeted to near zero.

Can the attitude of the average British subject ever be changed regarding guns in the hands of the people? I hope and pray that it can for the sake of your country and the vast majority of your people who are law abiding. As an inspirational example of the kind of change in your thinking that can be achieved, I submit to you the case of my British born and bred wife. When we married and she came to live here in the US, ahe was just as gun-phobic as many of the posters on here have demonstrated themselves to be.

We settled in a suburban community just outside of Atlanta, and she gradually became accustomed to the fact that I kept guns for personal protection (not "sport" or hunting, again that is an entirely separate and irrelevant matter). Then one day, while I was at work, she became aware that someone had entered our garage and was rummaging around. She called the police, just as you would, but she had another resource that the people of Britain don't. When the burglar emerged from our garage carrying an armload of tools he intended for the local pawn shop, he was confronted by my wife who was still speaking with the police operator on the cordless phone she was holding in one hand, and by my .44 magnum revolver that she was holding in her other hand.(yes, that's the one made famous by "Dirty Harry") The burglar promptly lay on the ground when my wife asked him to do so and awaited the arrival of the police. When the police arrived they were immensely pleased with the situation and after identifying the man, informed my wife that he had an extensive criminal record including several violent assaults. That was a few years ago now, but my wife is still regarded as something of a folk hero by our local police. That story came to a happy ending, but think for a moment how it could have turned out differently. Suppose that the man had decided to try our house instead of our garage and suppose that my wife had not had a gun day. The story could have likely then ended with the coroner being called and the police writing a report and wondering who could have done this.

Even the best and most efficient police force in the world is extremely unlikely to be standing by you when a violent criminal strikes. It is simply not possible. Then all of the gun laws, neighbourhood snitches, and psychological tests in the world wont help you, the victim. Please think about this and consider for a moment that the solution for achieving greater safety for you and your families does not lie with "getting the government to do something". It lies with each and everyone of you taking responsibility for yourselves."

 

[Tez3]

A great part of Cumbria is armed as is North Yorkshire. Nearly all of us have shotguns and rifles. Guns are carried in vehicles as well as at home.

The majority of people here aren't gun phobic they just don't want to be armed. What suits one place doesn't suit another.

Could someone carrying a weapon have stopped the Cumbrian killer, very doubtful the way he was stopping, shooting then speeding off down back roads and country lanes. My professional opinion is that no he wouldn't have been stopped by someone carrying a weapon.

I would say thanks for the advice mate but we'll do things here as we want to not as others think it should be done, it may be right or wrong but it will be our way.

 

[Langenschwert]

Well no, we do have a libertarian party here, it just gets its *** kicked in every election. Most of us libertarians are with the Conservatives, in fact we make up a huge proportion of the party in Ontario.

The corporate "toadies" to which you refer are traditionally the Liberals. Until the donation rules changed a few years ago, the vast majority of Liberal donations, dollar wise, were from companys and company owners. By contrast the CPC had 95% of its donations from individuals, most of which were under $50 each.

It was the conservatives who brought in the rules that no companies or unions can donation to political parties. And believe me, Elections Canada enforces this to the letter.

Interesting. Learn something new every day. I wonder how many of the "Libertarian" Conservatives are former Alliance/Reform members. It's nice to see a large "grass roots" financial base in the Conservative Party. The no union thing must have hit the NDP hard. Poor "Taliban Jack".

Best regards,

-Mark