Law or Justice......

[Bammx2]

Crom....

thanks for clearing that up for me,the only thing I can say in return is the "facts" I got,came from the BBC......media/propaganda?
It is a possability.....
The problem with any stat or the media is that we have to take on the responsability to either trust sources we don't know as individuals or become "conspiracy theorists" for lack of a better term.
But at the end of the day....there is not supposed to any shootings at all in the UK,incident or otherwise, due to the fact most firearms are so tightly scrutinised.
And as genral note to all who read what I say.........
If anything is misleading,I apologise and welcome to the opportunity to be corrected.
To be truthful,I could care less if hand guns are ever made legal here.
But I am firm believer that the man who was beheaded in belsize park could have been saved by a small can off pepper spray.....

ginshun.....
Yes, mini-maglights are the viable and legal alternative to the kubaton, hence the reason I push them.
And compared to the surefire flashlights....they will burn yer retinas out of yer skull! Not that its a bad thing.....

 

[Crom]

Its cool, daresay there are errors that can be picked in what i quoted, or at least different ways to present the figures. Trying to get my head round the stats for the upcoming election at the mo, two parties drawing opposite conclusions from the same data confuses the hell out of me.


I agree that he may have been saved with pepper spray or similar, i don't know the exact circumstances but i can't imagine the current government giving any lee way.

Maglite saves the world?

 

[rmcrobertson]

The article by Gary Kleck is a good article, a useful corrective to the sorts of knee-jerk reactions about guns that you do sometimes hear, and read, from liberals and left-wingers like myself.

However, there are two reasons that some of you folks might want to think twice before you wave Mr. Kleck's research and conclusions around too wildly.

First off, if you do a little looking on the same website, you'll find this--also by Mr. Kleck:

3. MY QUARRELS WITH THE GUN LOBBY
As Mr. Lambert portrays it, I am a mendacious puppet of the gun lobby. In fact, I have often rebuked the gun lobby for myopic, constitutionally unwarranted opposition to a variety of moderate controls; e.g. Don B. Kates, "Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment" in E. Hickok (ed.), THE BILL OF RIGHTS: ORIGINAL MEANING AND CURRENT UNDERSTANDING 130 (U.Va. Press, 1991) ("the gun lobby's obnoxious habit of assailing all forms of regulation on Second Amendment grounds."); Don B. Kates, "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection" 9 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY 87, 88 (1992) ("the gun lobby's obnoxious pretension that the [Second] amendment bars any gun control it happens to oppose, however moderate or rational."), Don B. Kates, "Gun Control: Separating Reality from Symbolism", 20 J. CONTEMP. LAW 353, 365 (1994) ("the gun lobby position may be briefly dispatched by noting that the Amendment does not read: 'Congress shall make no law of which the gun lobby disapproves.'" -- emphasis in original).


My latest book (ARMED, co-authored with Prof. Kleck) condemns extremists on both sides for, like Mr. Lambert, portraying the issues as simply a matter of pro-gun versus anti-gun; and I argue that enactment of moderate, sensible controls is precluded by vituperative extremist rhetoric against gun ownership. See pp. 109-14, 116-22. Among other articles, monographs and books endorsing a variety of gun controls, or condemning gun lobby obstructionism, are: Don B. Kates (ed.), FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE 527-35 (1984); Don B. Kates, "The Battle Over Gun Control," 84 THE PUBLIC INTEREST 42-43, 45-46 (1986); Don B. Kates, "Firearms and Violence: Old Premises and Current Evidence" in T. Gurr (ed.) VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, v. 1, at 198 and 207 (1989).


Similarly, the last 20% of my Second Amendment magnum opus is devoted to affirming the constitutionality of gun registration, licensing, and other controls that are anathema to the gun lobby. Don B. Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment", 82 MICH. L. REV. 203 (1983). That portion of my article was denounced as "'Orwellian Newspeak'" in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. I have debated on these matters against NRA experts, e.g., Don B. Kates, "The Second Amendment: A Dialogue", 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 143 (1986) versus Stephen P. Halbrook, "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment", 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 153 (1986). (My part of this debate was devoted almost entirely to defending the validity of various gun controls.)

Huh, looky there. The other problem for some posters is that the conclusion the cited article actually reaches is that "socio-cultural," factors influence violence more heavily than gun ownership. Specifically, the claim is that there's something about those wacky European societies that makes them less violent than ours--could it be education? better distribution of income? better social programs? families that are better-supported by their government? sex and drug education? access to health care? You know--all those socialistic, wacky programs that Hizzoner is currently working hard to dismantle?

By the way, it makes a lot more sense to compare this country to England than to South Africa. Among other things, we're very much in the same situation--South Africa is not.

If you want to know what I personally think--and in case you missed it the last nine times I said this--I don't see anything wrong with owning rifles and shotguns for hunting, target shooting, etc. I think that nearly everybody who believes that carrying a handgun or having one in the house will make them safer is kidding themselves--at home, you want defense, go with what the professionals have and get a shotgun; on the street, a sharp eye and social justice will nearly always keep you a helluva lot safer than something in a .40. And I also can't for the life of me see what's so damn terrible about reasonable licensing and gun control.

Best of all would be to have a society of grown-ups, of course. You know--adults who could be trusted with guns all by themselves, adults who would understand that waving an AK around on weekends doesn't make them more of a man.

 

[ginshun]

adults who would understand that waving an AK around on weekends doesn't make them more of a man

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a ton of fun.

As far as gun control goes, I have no problem with the current gun control laws. I don't have any use for a fully automatic gun or for a bazzooka. The problem that I have with gun control is some idiot holding a AK over his head as an example of a semi-automatic rifle, and then preaching how all semi-auto guns should be banned, because they are only made for murdering people.

Maybe people should enforce the current laws, instead of thinking up more of them that won't do any good anyway.

Saying that guns are responsible for murder is like saying keyboards are responsible for misspelled words. (which if that is the case, I probably need a new keyboard)

but again, I am getting off topic, sorry.

 

[Tgace]

Im not against "reasonable" controls on gun ownership either. Problem is some peoples ideas of "reasonable" are, well lets just say, suspect. Like "longuns for hunting are OK as long as there are no pistol grips, flash "hiders", magazines that can hold more than 3 rounds, dont "look nasty", and pistols should be outright banned."

And as its been already stated, the violence rate difference between the US and Europe goes back hundreds of years to the point where most of our population was still pretty much "fresh of the boats". So I object to the whole "social program(ing)" conclusion.

 

[Tgace]

As to Law in England...how "worked up" have the populace gotten? Not enough to inspire change I would wager.

 

[Bammx2]

Just one quick note....

I have been reviewing the replies that have been given to the original and I have realised that it has become the same old beat hack about gun control.
Sorry if that offended...but you can beat a dead only so much.
It was originally about "law or justice"...not guns.
I do,however,realise that it is hard to get a certain unbiasness when you don't live in a country like the UK.
Let me add this,and if I make anyone mad here in the UK,I apologise up front.
I have lived here for almost 5 years now and some things I have noticed are starting to boil over.
Gun control...forget it.
There is no gun control,regardless of what stats say.
I know of a van full of police who was sprayed last year in camden with a mac-11 who would argue that point.
Knives...if you carry ANYTHING,regardless of the reason,it has to comply with certain laws...1 being the blade has to be less than 3 inches and it can NOT have a lock on it.Thats for folders.
Fixed blade...you're going to jail!
A personal friend of mine got arrested for having a multitool...the blades locked.Even though,he needed it for work,made no difference.
Now...they don't care what the reason is, you have a knife of any kind or size..they want mandatory jail sentences imposed.
Walking canes..If you don't a note from your mom(sorry,doctor) you get arrested.I don't need a doctor to tell me I have messed up leg.In fact...99% don't need it either.
Sticks/batons(asp's)...arrested.
Oh yea...did mention that pepper spray is classified as a firearm here?
Now, to be fair, you CAN use all the above to defend your life if the situation arises...THEN you have to have damn good reason as to WHY you had the object in the first place! If you can't.....haha...yer done.
Defend someone else....done.
Don't get me wrong,I obviously like this country or I wouldn't be here.
But I don't like being automatically classified as a criminal just because I want to defend myself and the best way is to fight fire with fire.
"Rise above it" all you want...the flames WILL rise as well!
The beheading I mentioned...gwyneth paltrow owns a house there.Its a "nice" area.So the whole "socio-economic" thing is on its way out the window.
Parliament is under the impression the police does ALL crime stopping and the police ONLY.Impossible.
In the US...you are left to you own choices.If you screw up,you have to accept the penalty.At least you're given that option.
Here,you don't have that option
In the mind of the "law", if you do a "police action" on you're own,i.e.. possess pepper spray, you are automatically a threat to society.
And thier cop out......"if we let you,we have to let everybody". CROCK!
My heart goes out to the police here...there hands are tied.
Now...lets get off the gun thing.
How about the inalienable human right to defend yourself at all cost?
As I said previously,OC,pepper,stun guns...all classified as firearms here.
Why? Don't say it's to "keep them out of the hands of the bad element"...they are the only ones who have them!
Somebody,ANYBODY, give me a better reason than that!
Oops....this wasn't as quick as I thought.

Bamm puts the soap box away........

 

[ginshun]

I have long been of the opinion that all that banning things like guns, knives, stun guns, ect does is take them out of the hands of law abiding people and put them in the hands of criminals. As if some mob hit man or gang member is going to turn in his gun if you make it illegal. I mean how can any rational mind not see this clear as day? The only people that would turn them in would be people who are law abiding citizens to begin with. To me it seems like an extremely simple concept.

 

[Bammx2]

As to Law in England...how "worked up" have the populace gotten? Not enough to inspire change I would wager.

The populace here is pi$$ed!
But they are not given the opportunity to vote on things like that.
There was a big roohaa here recently concerning the right to defend you own home against intruders.....
Parliament made the decision.There was no public vote.
God forbid if parliament gave the public the chance to make thier own decisions regarding the defense of thier own lives or home.
If they did....they would have to rewrite everything in the law books!
Criminals would definatley have the playing field leveled if the general public were given the option.
And we can't have that now,can we?