Gun Control politics on both sides of the pond

[JoseDominguez]

OK

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
Here's your Sun post done on our side of tha Atlantic by the Arkensas Herald...

The Paintball thing is worrying, they have been used in a lot of maimings (particularly random blindings) and one death I know of, seems like most of the users who do this are young and too stupid to realise how lethal they are, the "it's just an paintgun" mentality. Of course, it's a lot easier to justify why you are carrying an airgun than a paintgun e.g. "hunting, field target shooting, pest control" rather than "breaking windows, shooting roadsign and militia training". We really need to distance ourselves from them.


See where I'm going with this?

Frankly no, again, from a UK perspective: total paintball related crime= so low I can't find the figures. Airguns=three incidents in my local paper since Sunday.

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Mark
I am with Hotpoint in so far as to say .."Its your constitution and you have to live with it" but when misquoted (to begin with )and misinterpreted by one of the countries residents who is subject to its implications. In your post above you use the word "gist" this means to imply (a contradiction of your own post already)

I did not use "gist" as an implication of anything. Gist, as defined is, The central idea; the essence. The implication is yours.

Originally posted by Mark
you use the term "like" in the way to inferr that the words used are similair to other meanings.......

Not at all, the meaning was the same, only the words that were disputed by those opposed to the rights of the people to keep and bear arms were substituted with ones no one seems to dispute. As in my other response, the change of meaning stems from your own bias.

Originally posted by Mark
note the commas etc seems they found the same version as Hotpoint
Isn't the internet wonderful

Not as wonderful as it was for me. I spent nearly an hour trying to find an up close image of the actual Bill of Rights, and the only one I found was like 9 megs and it wouldn't down load. I've seen it before, believe me, there is only one comma. Why everyone on both sides of the argument uses 3 is beyond me.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
I don’t think so. Where you have 100% personal freedom and no legislation on side of the scale and total security through legsilation & enforcement and no personal freedom on the other, any place between the two is a compromise between factors (and I’m not using “compromise” in a derogatory sense here). Maybe this is an oversimplification, but I still don’t think it is necessarily untrue.

Yes, and one of the factors is personal freedom, hence a compromise of it. Any compromise you make of your personal freedom is a derogatory one.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
Don't get me wrong - I'm still glad that if someone ever tries and mugs me, chances are they won't be carrying anything I can't run away from -

A big stick or a knife can be just as deadly as a gun, and someone intent on taking your money isn't going to leave you with many options.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
but I guess he whole point of the media circus surrounding UK firearms (and it is a circus, with all the associated distractions and hyperbole) is that we don't want to see our game lumped in with some ill-advised knee-jerk reaction.

And as your target shooters found out, what you want matters not.

 

[Pete Martin]

Jose

My sig may say I am from Australia but only for the last year or so I am English and Know the laws and situation as well as you do...

I am saying that you should not be trying to separtate paintball from Air Gun Shooting but help defend the Air Gunners right to own there equipment because if you think that separating us will save paintball then you are wrong, as soon as the Politicians have finished with Airguns the focus will be shifted to paintball so we should be standing up the the Air Gunners not separtaing ourselves...

I say this because down here in Australia the gun laws are so tight now it is ridiculous... after banning one type of gun and the gun crime rate increasing the government then feels that instead of trying to find the correct solution they'll just ban another type of gun and so on and it never has and never will make a difference to the gun related crimes...

when I shall ridiculous I mean it too... Paintball in australia is small because of the laws, no semi auto makers are allowed into Australia... anything from tippmans to impulses they are all an illegal import along with handguns and any other semi auto weapon... so wheres my point...

a few weeks ago a child died (very sad I admit) from firing a plastic dart gun into his mouth, you know the ones that have a sticky sucker on the end that we all used to shoot at walls with, now these toys have been in exsitiance for decades and lets face it are harmless... because of this accident the little toy plastics dart guns are now ILLEGAL!

so where does it stop, yes the accident was a tragedy but more people have died from being hit with a golf ball than dart guns so do we defend our basic rights or do we ban Golf!...

slightly off the cuff but you see my point...

 

[Mark]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
I did not use "gist" as an implication of anything. Gist, as defined is, The central idea; the essence. The implication is yours.

Not at all, the meaning was the same, only the words that were disputed by those opposed to the rights of the people to keep and bear arms were substituted with ones no one seems to dispute. As in my other response, the change of meaning stems from your own bias.

Not as wonderful as it was for me. I spent nearly an hour trying to find an up close image of the actual Bill of Rights, and the only one I found was like 9 megs and it wouldn't down load. I've seen it before, believe me, there is only one comma. Why everyone on both sides of the argument uses 3 is beyond me.

Yes, and one of the factors is personal freedom, hence a compromise of it. Any compromise you make of your personal freedom is a derogatory one.

A big stick or a knife can be just as deadly as a gun, and someone intent on taking your money isn't going to leave you with many options.

And as your target shooters found out, what you want matters not.

Mark I have left your post intact so I can't be accused of taking anything out of context.

Imply .....means to infer or as you use it ...it is all the same thing....taken in the context of your original post you were twisting the meaning to suit your own conculsion. Commas or not as the case may be.

Cornell University is inaccurate ?????
Your ELECTED Goverments online Archive is inaccurate ?????

Come along.......I have already said yourself and I won't agree but it has taken you nearly 24 hrs to reply to a message you had viewed early last night and all you come up with trying to say I am using the wrong definitions of some words (I am not) don't take 1 post saying about the enjoyment of your posts being read to mean you can carry on attacking when evidence has been given to you ....I only went to find those links to be honest and fair and to see IF you were right......you weren't.

I understand you have a different set of rules where you are (ok this thread has been split to allow some slight different ideas to spring forth??) and I have said its your set of rules, you have to live by them, I don't and its all fine ....just read what is shown to you not what you think is there, if you still dissagree then fine, it don't make you a bad person and the same applies to me. How many times do I have to extend an olive branch ????????

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
A big stick or a knife can be just as deadly as a gun, and someone intent on taking your money isn't going to leave you with many options.

Just thought u would like to see this





LONDON (Reuters) - One British police officer was stabbed to death and four others were injured on Tuesday in an anti-terror raid which police said was linked to last week's discovery of the deadly poison ricin in a London apartment.


Alan Green, assistant chief police constable in the Northern English city of Manchester, said officers had swooped on an address there to detain a man under a terrorism law and found two further men in their 20s at the scene.


At least one of the suspects attacked the officers with a large knife. One 40-year-old police officer died of stab wounds in hospital and four others were hurt.

 

[TJ Lambini]

Do you know the way to ban, Jose?

I've been away too long...

>>>Frankly no, again, from a UK perspective: total paintball related crime= so low I can't find the figures. Airguns=three incidents in my local paper since Sunday.

Mr Martin has answered you eloquently IMO.

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

Hi Mark(Static)

I think we're getting stuck on a definition of "compromise". I mean "something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things", Wheras you take it as "a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial" (merriam Webster online!) -
as we are mentioning presonal freedom.

I don't think it necessarily follows that 100% personal freedom is a good thing, because it allows no consideration for the personal freedom of others (why should I have to moderate my behaviour to suit anybody else?), but it's all academic because the point I was trying to make is that no-one in the UK wants to surrender all their personal freedom to a police state even if it would ensure total security. Not so different from the US then after all

Alien, regarding .22 calibres, yes I'm aware of gravity and also rifle cartridges (.220 swift is used as a sniper round by police forces in Germany I believe as it has a flat high velocity trajectory), but the point was the MP was grandstanding on headlines, not checking his facts!

As for the recent tragedy where the police officer was killed - yes knives do kill people. Guns do it more efficiently though, and at range: how many would have died in that playschool attack if the person in question had used a gun instead of a machete? (Notwithstanding one of the teacher's outstanding bravery to shield the kids).

Interestingly, and counter to what I've argued so far, I've seen some statistics (possibly someone has mentioned this earlier in the thread) that violent crime is decreasing where attackers fear that their victims may be carrying legally concealed firearms. One would have to consider if the level of crime was sufficient to merit a climate of fear in order to control it though - fortunately I've never been mugged despite my best attempts to keep unsociable hours in unsavoury places. Maybe this will change, and has changed in some places already

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Mark
Imply .....means to infer or as you use it ...it is all the same thing....taken in the context of your original post you were twisting the meaning to suit your own conculsion. Commas or not as the case may be.

NO! The meaning was not changed at all, except in your mind. You believe our 2nd amendment means one thing, and I know it means another. I simply replaced the words that are so offensive to you, with words that are not, and you say I changed the meaning. I maintain the meaning has always been there.

Originally posted by Mark
Cornell University is inaccurate ?????
Your ELECTED Goverments online Archive is inaccurate ?????

Look it up yourself http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=220 Or search: second amendment commas. I should've done that from the start. Am I still penalized for taking more than 24 hours?

Originally posted by Mark
I understand you have a different set of rules where you are (ok this thread has been split to allow some slight different ideas to spring forth??) and I have said its your set of rules, you have to live by them, I don't and its all fine ....just read what is shown to you not what you think is there, if you still dissagree then fine, it don't make you a bad person and the same applies to me. How many times do I have to extend an olive branch ????????

I was fine with that, I began this by offering my sympathy, and my opinion that since your PM's make hasty decisions, that a volunteer registration may not work, and may in fact back-fire. And now we're arguing the definitions of the word gist (got to be the first time that ever happen), and whether a 214 year old sentence originally had two commas or one.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
I think we're getting stuck on a definition of "compromise". I mean "something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things", Wheras you take it as "a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial" (merriam Webster online!) - as we are mentioning presonal freedom.

I'm not trying to imply that anarchy is preferred over a state of marshal law. Guns were once legal, and now they are not. That is the compromise of freedom to which I was referring.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
I don't think it necessarily follows that 100% personal freedom is a good thing, because it allows no consideration for the personal freedom of others (why should I have to moderate my behaviour to suit anybody else?), but it's all academic because the point I was trying to make is that no-one in the UK wants to surrender all their personal freedom to a police state even if it would ensure total security. Not so different from the US then after all

I understand, but it will never read right to me. Fundementally; you will always compromise personal freedom for the sake of legistlation. That is not to imply (yes I meant to say that) that all legistlation erodes personal freedom, but in the current subject I believe it does.

 

[duffistuta]

What makes me laugh is

the way certain groups leap on the 'personal freedom' bandwagon and then off again when it suits 'em.

Case in point, the SAGB (Sportsman's Assoc. of Great Britain). Formed post-Dunblane to campaign for shooters' rights, their press releases soon started banging the 'your liberties are being eroded' gong. They started bringing up infringements on liberty like - gasp - having to wear seatbelts in cars, and CCTV cameras in shopping centres.

Now you just KNOW that these are the same people who, when Clause 28 (Hotpoint? is that the right fella) was passed to help stop raves, and when the age of consent was being debated, were all too eager to applaud the Govts' stance in restricting other people's freedoms because they, by and large, didn't like them. As soon as the boot's on the other foot, suddenly freedom is an important issue.

It's the hypocrisy that gets me - if they'd just said 'We want our guns back, we haven't done anything wrong and indeed I suspect you're breaking European Law in taking them off us' I wouldn't mind.

Seatbelts in cars for ****'s sake...****ers.

 

[Equus]

I demand my right to be thrown through my cars windscreen in the event of a crash and to end up like some gurning pizza spread across someone else's car bonnet.

I was a bit annoyed when the firearm ban took place, at the time I'd just started pistol shooting and my dad was applying for his liscence (mainly to shut me up, but partly as he'd been a pretty good marksman when he was younger). The ban stopped that, if I remeber correctly a few people tryed to say people would be just as happy with air weapons.

So what if they try and ban air weapons, a lot of people would probably say we'd be just as happy with laser tag stuff.