These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas


by Sunny Hundal    
10:10 am - December 26th 2012

      Share on Tumblr

The AR-15 style assault rifle, the weapon of choice in both the Colorado shooting and the recent Newtown massacre, has seen a huge jump in sales across the US since the incidents.

Many Americans even got them for Christmas presents.

Here are some tweets of them rejoicing or even showing off their newly received assault rifles. One of those who got an assault rifle for Christmas is apparently just 10 years old.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Revolting.
Just horrid.

But it seems like half of Brits were given “onesies” for Christmas.

I am not actually sure which is worse.

Apparently after each massacre the gun used end up being bought in large numbers, so mass murders end up being a perverse and deadly form of marketing.

What the fuck!? All I can say is god bless the UK. It’s times like this I’m grateful living in this country for all its faults. Our ‘unconstitutional’ right not to bear arms is a thing to behold.

What fuckwits!

This highlights the farcical irony of the seasonal message about: Peace and goodwill to all.

8. Jenny Lewenstein

I am gobsmacked by these comments and pictures. It is really very scarey, I can’t imagine how awful it must be to be in america now or Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza……..Peace NOW!!!

9. Wordy Rapponghood

Joke’s on them – the AR-10 is a much better rifle.

what the hell is wrong with theses people. the photo of the young lad with the camera and gun is particularly disturbing, after all thats gone on you would not give a murder machine to a 15 year old, unbelievable

I’m all for a debate on whether or not firearms should be banned in the US, but getting upset about people receiving a rifle for Xmas is pretty ridiculous.

Especially ridiculous is that rifles aren’t cheap gifts you buy at the last minute, so probably most of these were bought more than 11 days before Xmas.

I wonder how many of these people bought the AR-15 specifically because of the newtown shooting and what the thought processes are of those individuals. I mean is it ‘cool’ to have a gun that has been shown to be very effective at killing unarmed children?

Two feets they come a creepin’
Like a black cat do
And two bodies are lyin’ naked
Creeper think he got nothin’ to lose
So he creeps into this house, yeah
And unlocks the door
And while a man reaching for his trousers
Shoots him full of .38 holes

Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that’s blue and cold
Ain’t no good for nothin’
But put a man six feet in a hole

Big Jim’s been drinkin’ whiskey
And playing poker on a losin’ night
Pretty soon, Big Jim starts a thinkin’
Somebody been cheatin’ and lyin’
So Big Jim commences to fightin’
I wouldn’t tell you no lie
And Big Jim done grab his pistol
Shot his friend right between the eyes

Hand guns are made for killin’
Ain’t no good for nothin’ else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don’t we dump ‘em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

I hope these seasonal gun gifts all came in Christmas wrapping paper to maintain the festive spirit.

LOL! You Brits sure have forgotten how America supplied your Island with privately owned firearms when Germany threatened your soft lives. Your serf attitude is one of the reason we Americans came here to begin with: to live our lives free from silly sots like you, and to be without a King or Queen (God save her), and to have a government of the people, for the people.

Don’t look now, but British gun crime, and violent crime overall has surpassed the US since implimentation of your gun and knife bans. Scotland Yard statistics, not mine.

Good thing all those “peaceful” muslims are there to protect you from all the CCTV cameras…..right?

Dave: “You Brits sure have forgotten how America supplied your Island with privately owned firearms when Germany threatened your soft lives.”

Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 failing a response to an ultimatum to Germany to end its invasion of Poland to honour a treaty made between Britain and Poland in April 1939 to guarantee Poland’s territorial integrity. At the time, Britain’s population of 39 million was half that of the combined populations of Germany and Austria.

After the surrender of France in June 1940, Britain stood alone in Europe against Nazi Germany until Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. Hitler thought Britain would negotiate a peace settlement and had an invasion fleet prepared. Joe Kennedy, the American ambassador to Britain, famously thought we were done for. But Germany lost the Battle for Britain between the RAF and the Luftwaffe in the late summer of 1940 so Hitler postponed the invasion indefinitely. As the Luftwaffe lacked air supremacy, a German invasion fleet would have been vulnerable in the Channel to attacks by the RAF and the Royal Navy resulting in unacceptable casualties.

America supplied armaments to Britain under a Lease-Lend arrangement but remained neutral through all that. America eventually entered the war in Europe after Germany declared war on America on 11 December 1941, four days after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

After the war, Von Rundstedt, C-in-C west in the German high command, was asked by the Soviets as to the decisive strategic battle of the war. He correctly said: The Battle of Britain. Had Britain reached a peace settlement with Germany in May 1940, as Hitler expected, or had the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940 been lost, there could have been no Normandy landings in June 1944.

America wasn’t even in the war during the Battle for Britain. As Lukacs, an American historian concluded in his study: Five Days in May – London 1940, America and Russia won the war but Britain didn’t lose it.

Britain finally paid off its loans from America on 26 December 2006. Britain’s contribution to winning the war included breaking the German Enigma code for its secret military wireless traffic, after creating the first electronic digital computer, and inventing 10cm radar, which was invaluable in winning the Battle for the Atlantic in 1943 – the device for generating 10cm radio waves is the basic heating device in microwave ovens.

Hey Dave, we also haven’t forgot how Yanks (NORAID) supplied Armalite rifles and other weapons to the PIRA which were used to murder innocent civilians.
Guess you lot just can’t help yourselves eh?

Hey Sean, you make our point exactly! Criminal supplying criminals with guns! Exactly how many gun laws were broken during that uprising in the north? Sending guns to Ireland was also illegal here!

Fancy that, bad guys ignored gun laws!

Unless you were IRA, then it was Britain illegally occupying Belfast, and citizens rightly took up arms against the invader.

Mind you, I’ve no IRA sympathy, but they had a point.

The British and Irish governments thought they were there legitimately, murderers and gun nuts thought not. We won’t forget. Funny how attitudes changed over there when the explosives started killing your civilians instead of just ours, I wonder would you think Al Quiada had a point if they’d attacked anyone but the US?
You want guns in the US? Fine, I don’t care but don’t bring my country into it and don’t trot out the hoary old line about the US running to put out the fires whilst Europe burned or the other one about the UK being a violent place either.

America was dragged into the European war on 11 December 1941, against popular sentiment, because Germany declared war on America. See the account in William Shirer: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (chp.25) on sentiments in Congress after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941:

“My own impression in Washington at that moment was that it might be difficult for President Roosevelt to get Congress to declare war on Germany. There seemed to be a strong feeling in both Houses as well as in the Army and Navy that the country ought to concentrate its efforts on defeating Japan and not take on the additional burden of fighting Germany at the same time.”

The idea of having to fight a European war wasn’t at all popular in America. Try this famous speech made by Charles Lindbergh, the aviator, at Des Moines, in Iowa, on 11 September 1941:

“When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. . . . The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/primary/desmoinesspeech.html

Btw I lived through the war in inner London. Those times certainly weren’t soft. In June 1944, a few weeks after the D-Day landings in Normandy, a V1 flying bomb dropped down at one end of the road where I was living then and a V2 ballistic rocket landed at the other in January 1945. Americans had it soft with no bombing of towns and cities.

“Don’t look now, but British gun crime, and violent crime overall has surpassed the US since implimentation of your gun and knife bans. Scotland Yard statistics, not mine.”

Dave, that is utter shit. So you’re either trolling or incredibly stupid. Which is it? Actually I don’t care, but I despise you all the same.

Try this from America on gun murder comparisons:

“If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now. America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are ‘out there’ in the United States, more than one for every adult.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-truth-about-guns-we-need-to-change-constitution-2012-12

In Japan, there are hardly any gun killings nowadays because the ban on guns is so strictly enforced. Even the gangster Yakusas make do without guns.

23. Simon Whitten

Why are people demonising guns and the people who buy them? The US needs some sensible gun control laws, but naming and shaming those buying or receiving these guns is unnecessary and, frankly, a bit disturbing.

The reasons sales of guns like the AR-15 soar after shootings like this isn’t because of some perverse desire to own the gun used in the latest massacre as some above dishonestly imply, it’s because the odds of a backlash ban increases. This time around it looks likely that a lot of states will pass blanket assault weapon bans, to say nothing of the possibility of a federal law.

“The US needs some sensible gun control laws, but naming and shaming those buying or receiving these guns is unnecessary and, frankly, a bit disturbing.”

I can’t help recalling the insight of that American sage HL Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

The reasons sales of guns like the AR-15 soar after shootings like this isn’t because of some perverse desire to own the gun used in the latest massacre

This is despite the fact that after a spree shooting or massacre its the actual gun used in said shooting that starts flying off the shelves in large numbers rather than various competing models of the same calibre?

If you’re not from the USA, stay out of our politics. At least people like the NRA have done something good (example being the program to teach responsible gun safety and control), what have the anti-gun crowed done?

I’m a proud owner of Remington 700 bolt action, and Bushmaster AR15 semi-automatic rifle.

27. sue ricruise

I could not care less about what stupid Americans do with their dollars. They have created a cess-pit of a country, let them drown in it. Obama hasn’t an evil snowman’s hope in hell of influencing the NRA. Why bother posturing and hand-wringing?

28. Richard Carey

I think you anti-gun people are over-reacting as usual. The suggestion that people want to buy a particular gun because it’s been used in a notorious crime is rubbish, and a typical slur. Just because it’s probably the first time most of you have even heard of an AR15, you associate it with the school massacre, but that’s not the case for people who are interested in guns.

What is certainly the case, is that whenever it looks like the anti-gun lobby may get through more gun control, gun sales go up, because people want to get them now, in case they’re banned or it becomes more difficult and expensive to get them in the future. The same pattern would be seen with any product. When certain light-bulbs were banned, the same thing happened.

Well, speaking as an actual American… we all realize that guns are dangerous when in the wrong hands, and my heart certainly goes out to the recent shooting victims. However, you really can’t characterize all gun owners as crazy or murderous from a small fraction of mentally disturbed individuals with stolen or illegally obtained firearms that do reprehensible things.

What some Americans forget, and most non-Americans will never understand is that the second amendment is in place to keep the shores of the US safe from the oppression of foreign and, I hate to say it, domestic oppression. So, do I own rifles to hunt? Nope, I don’t hunt, but I do believe in ability to protect those liberties that made America what it is. It wasn’t but 230 some years ago that we took matters into our own hands by liberating ourselves from the oppression of British rule, and we didn’t do it with pitchforks and hay rakes. We did it with the most sophisticated weapon of the time.

Our Forefathers weren’t stupid when they amended the constitution; they knew exactly what they were saying when they penned the second amendment. The guns I own, like so many other Americans, are meant for protection, but not from the one-off home intruder, but rather the protection of our country as a whole along with the liberties that made her great.

This was meant as a short primer. The cold hard fact is that there are more violent crimes committed in the US with baseball bats, but you don’t see frightened liberals shivering and weeping for more “bat control”. For those living in other countries that throw arrogant comments over the pond please educate yourself and understand that we really appreciate your concern for your Yank Cousins.

So drop your jaw, be repulsed, or find it revolting, but we have enough work educating our own right now without having to worry about educating you as well…

Cheers!

RMG – American

30. Robin Levett

@RM George #29:

This was meant as a short primer. The cold hard fact is that there are more violent crimes committed in the US with baseball bats, but you don’t see frightened liberals shivering and weeping for more “bat control”.

Crikey, look, a wombat…

Coming back to the topic of conversation:

According to the CDC’s 2009 figures released last December, two thirds of your colossal murder rate (16,799 – as compared with UK’s 648) is gun murder (11,493/16,799); more than half of your suicides (18,735/36,909) are by gun. You have 14 times as many accidental deaths by firearms as we have gun murders (552:38). You even have more deaths by firearm where no-one can work out what happened than we have gun murders (232).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

As against that: how many Anericans went postal last year with a baseball bat and killed entire classrooms of children?

A gun is a force-multiplier – that’s exactly why they’re used by armed forces. So is a baseball bat – but to nothing like the same degree; apart from anythign else, it’s range is rather limited… Unless I get in a lucky shot, it will take me at least a minute to kill someone with a baseball bat; in that minute, I could kill how many primary-school age children? 50? 100?

The price you pay for your delusions of “freedom” is the deaths of 10s of thousands of your children and young adults.

9,000 gun deaths a year in America is an awful lot of killing.

In the news is a neat policy idea: gun insurance is made compulsory for gun owners just as car insurance is compulsory for motorists. Gun owners in high risk groups would be paying high premiums as insurance companies sought to minimise liability for harm inflicted by gun owners. There would be stiff judicial penalties for gun owners caught and convicted of not having gun insurance cover.

“Want to limit the number of firearms in this country? Or better yet, would you just like to make sure the people who do own them are responsible, careful individuals? Then have I got a policy proposal for you: make gun buyers purchase liability insurance for their weapons.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-smart-way-to-control-guns-force-owners-to-buy-insurance-for-them/266648/

Come on then Dave, let’s see these ‘Scotland Yard’ statistics showing that UK gun crime surpasses US gun crime.

I’m especially interested to see the figures on homicide.

There are around 170 firearms homicides a week in the US, right? Almost 9,000 a year. So if the rate of firearms homicides is higher in the UK, where the population is five time smaller, that means we must have at least 35 such crimes a week over here, right?

The weird thing is that the Home Office thinks we only have around 1 firearms homicide a week. Fewer than 60 a year. So Scotland Yard must be hiding the evidence on at least 34 murders a week from our own government! 97% of all firearms murders!

This is an unprecedented scandal. I urge you to release the secret files passed to you by Scotland Yard. The UK public has a right to know that firearms murders are more than 30 times more common than our government is telling us.

No-one NEEDS a semi auto rifle outside the military and police, its a poor choice for target shooting or hunting so why would anyone want one? This particular model has a history of being retro fitted with full auto conversion kits for the truly weird and dangerous. I’d like to see sales of rifles restricted to bolt action models with internal magazines no larger than five rounds

Why worry? Santa only gives guns to good little boys and girls.

Try this newsreel of a real shootout in North Hollywood, back in 1997, between police and two bank robbers armed with assault guns and wearing body armour. At the end, while many police and civilians had been injured only the two bank robbers were killed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVeb_zZdliw

37. Richard Carey

So, gun-grabbers, how’s it going? Have you convinced anyone yet? Just yourselves, huh? I guess one of your problems is the gun-owners know a lot more about the subject than you do, have heard it all before and have no intention of compromising, knowing as they do that if they compromise you’ll only be back for more, and the funny thing is, the more noise you make, the more gun sales rise. Oh the irony.

37

Yep, as Bobb quotes, no-one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Schmidt, you’re an idiot.

“No-one NEEDS a semi auto rifle outside the military and police, its a poor choice for target shooting or hunting so why would anyone want one?”

Um…there are HIGHLY accurate semi-automatic rifles out there. Take for instance the Barret MRAD rifle, the Knights Armament M110, the original Knights Armament SR25. And more come on the market every year.

Want to know why the “AR15″ is the highest selling rifle? Because you can customize it to fit. Here is some firearms knowledge for you. I’m on the smaller side, so when I had to fire a M16A2 for the military I did, but then we got the M4A1 rifles, MUCH better. Why? Because I can adjust the stock for my length of pull (distance from shoulder to trigger, in dumbed down terms). Dark out? Add flashlight with IR filter for your night vision, or a intruder in your house it can be used as a less lethal option (blind them). Need a small caliber for small game (like rabbits) and a rifle for big game (bear, elk, moose), hey swap your .223/5.56 NATO receiver out for another change out magazines and you have a .450 Bushmaster or .458 SOCOM or even a .500 Smith & Wesson (.50 caliber).

According to this source, the longest successful sniper shot record in the World is held by a British Soldier on the Taliban in 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNlIpXTtnvE&feature=related

Craig Harrison (born 1975) is a Corporal of Horse (CoH) in the Blues and Royals RHG/D of the British Army, and holds the record for the longest confirmed sniper kill in combat, at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd). Established in November 2009, this exceeds the previous 2,430 m (2,657 yd) record set by Rob Furlong in 2002 by 45 m (49 yd).

Btw America has only once been successfully invaded – by a British army in 1812 when public buildings in Washington were sacked and set alight. The second amendment to the US Constitution on 1791 wasn’t much use in preventing that – or in preventing the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

“Dave, that is utter shit. So you’re either trolling or incredibly stupid”.

He’s a US gun apologist, which amounts to the same thing.

Dave, the US was effectively dragged, kicking and screaming, into WWII – and (aside from materiel) the ONLY useful contribution the US made was to make up the numbers: US forces were routinely shite at the job at hand, much like they’ve been in every 20th and 21st century conflict they’ve been involved in since. But I suppose you consider Vietnam a win for your side, eh?

Lardy, mincing, idiot toy soldiers the lot of ‘em. (Seriously, ask anybody who has served alongside Septics in the last 70 years – they’re a fucking joke: all the gear and no fucking idea).

Not to mention the US military’s UNIQUE talent with Friendly Fire.

“If you’re not from the USA, stay out of our politics”.

Oh, the frigging IRONY…

42. Richard Carey

@ 38 steveb,

“Yep, as Bobb quotes …”

Yeah, that’s the second time he’s quoted that line at LibCon this week. He really needs to read a bit more widely. Then he may find out what Mencken thought of the British.

43. Richard Carey

It seems the anti-gun lobby has transformed into an anti-American lobby.

@ Bob B,

yeah, they may have set fire to Washington, but Jackson kicked the Red Coats in the scrotum down in New Orleans.

By American research, the annual cost of gun violence in America is staggering:

“The impact of gun deaths and injuries go well beyond heartbreak to include billions of dollars of losses to the economy. The cost of US gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.”
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121222/BUSINESS13/312220009/Shootings-costing-U-S-174-B-show-gun-violence-burden?nclick_check=1

From The Economist on this 26 December:

NOURIEL ROUBINI, a guy who knows a lot about risk, tweets in favour of mandatory liability insurance for gun owners:

‘If we had liability insurance on guns, as we do 4 cars, we will see which insurance company would insure at which price folks with arsenals’

It’s an idea that seems to be gathering a bit of steam.

45. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #43:

It seems the anti-gun lobby has transformed into an anti-American lobby.

I wonder whether Dave’s post at #15 might have had anything to do with that:

LOL! You Brits sure have forgotten how America supplied your Island with privately owned firearms when Germany threatened your soft lives. Your serf attitude is one of the reason we Americans came here to begin with

46. Robin Levett

@RM George:

Are you a member of the militia (definite article intended)? Do you actually know your own constitution on the subject of the militia?

@ 26 Dustin

If you’re not from the USA, stay out of our politics.

And this from a citizen of the country that interferes in the internal affairs of other countries more than any other nation in the world.

Pots… kettles…

47. yfyhvlhvbl

@ 26 Dustin

If you’re not from the USA, stay out of our politics.

And this from a citizen of the country that interferes in the internal affairs of other countries more than any other nation in the world.

Pots… kettles…

If we didn’t, who would have stopped the GENOCIDE in the Baltics? How about Iraq in the ’90s? Should I mention Somalia? While yes, some of those were UN missions, we provided more of a force. We never told you to abolish your gun rights, but you’re trying to tell us to? HA!

Robin

America only entered WW2 in Europe because Germany declared war on America on 11 December 1941.

For accounts of that context, try @16 and @20.

America wasn’t even in the war at the time of the decisive Battle of Britain in the late summer of 1940. Had that battle for air supremacy been lost or had Britain reached a peace settlement with Nazi Germany in May 1940 – as Hitler believed was inevitable – there could have been no Normandy landings in June 1944. And there would have been no need for Germany to have stationed troops and military resources in France to guard against an invasion. Germany would have been able to concentrate all military resources on defeating the Soviet Union after the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

Americans love deluding themselves with the fantasy that they came to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny.

Btw it tends to get overlooked that Britain’s population in 1939 was half that of the combined populations of Germany and Austria.

Jackson did indeed win an excellent victory in New Orleans. Mind you, New Orleans is about 1300 miles away from Canada (which the US had invaded hoping the war in Europe would keep the British Army busy) so that demonstrates how well the war had been going for the US at that stage.
(I know it’s off topic but so what?)

This was London in 1940 with actual newsreel from those times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiW_yYOm2e8

That is how it was. Quentin Reynolds, the reporter, was an American war correspondent reporting from London.

Bob B, if you’ve got nothing better to do, check this guy out.
http://www.hobotraveler.com/blogger.html

He calls himself the ”Hobo Traveler” and does one of these videos with his homespun wisdom about his travels every couple of days. I think you might like him.
He’s in West Africa right now.

Damon

Better still, I’ve been watching this American documentary on The Battle of Britain, made for home consumption at the time so Americans could learn what had been going on in Europe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KzI9OCxdk

The US won independence with the help of the French, which is why they’ve got a big green French-made statue in New York…

Cylux: “The US won independence with the help of the French, which is why they’ve got a big green French-made statue in New York…”

But why aren’t Americans speaking French then?

“Most non-Americans will never understand is that the second amendment is in place to keep the shores of the US safe from the oppression of foreign and, I hate to say it, domestic oppression.”

To which the current generations of retarded fools are not capable of, you idiots cant fight a parking ticket. And more to the point, if the population is armed for that reason, how did such a serious thing transform into smiles and giggles holding machine guns for christmas morning pictures.

@55 Bit of a late entry into the ‘non-sequitur of the year’ competition don’t ya think?

Geez, this random hand wringing from whinging lefties really does come across as drivellous faux sentiment coupled with conceited ‘I know best’ arse waffle. Just because some people are clearly unhinged, everyone should have their liberty curtailed? The tedium of lefty rhetoric is at least reliable.

“Just because some people are clearly unhinged, everyone should have their liberty curtailed?”

Liberty to what exactly? Liberty to defend against a foreign force invading the country with the most powerful military in the world in the year 2012?

Liberty to defend your self against the most powerful military in the world as a citizen in the never ever going to happen event of needing to with your box of 300 rounds?

Or just liberty to own a machine gun because its cool, init.

If nutjobs are intent on going out and killing kids, regardless of their weapon of choice, then it’s nigh on impossible to prevent it. By focussing on the weapons the elephant quietly munching away in the room with bunting around his neck saying ‘don’t fucking kill kids’ is conveniently missed for the sake of political opportunism. Personally, i’d wanna ban all guns but that ship’s sailed so focussing on whether it’s this rifle or that rifle is just fanciful, vulgar, pathetic cockwaffle and completely misses the point. So yeah, the curtailment of liberty because fuckwits wake up in the moring thinking ‘fuck it, think i’ll kill some kids today’ – and some of those fuckwits are cops too. So sure, have a debate about the Ar-10 or AR-15 but I kinda think it’s insulting.

61. Glenn Spicer

What a bunch of looney tunes.

“Personally, i’d wanna ban all guns but that ship’s sailed so focussing on whether it’s this rifle or that rifle is just fanciful, vulgar, pathetic cockwaffle and completely misses the point”

Then frankly your not the worlds sharpest thinker. No one wants to “ban all guns”. The weapons in question are so for a reason, there is a difference between a bolt action hunting rifle and an AR-15.

What is insulting, to intelligence, is listening to people say ” we need them to defend against an invasion ” ” we need them to over throw our goverment” Always toped of with “those who arent American just wont understand” as though Americans have some superior duty to take the world on, its fantasy.

56: “Most non-Americans will never understand is that the second amendment is in place to keep the shores of the US safe from the oppression of foreign and, I hate to say it, domestic oppression.”

But gun ownership in America didn’t deter Timothy McVeigh from blowing up a government building in Oklahoma City in April 1995, killing 168 people and injuring over 800.

I note that correspondents here are avoiding the sensible policy proposal to introduce compulsory gun insurance for gun owners, which could go some way towards alleviating the family, personal and public services costs inflicted by 9,000 gun homicides a year. The cost of the insurance premiums would surely stack up for collectors of gun arsenals and high risk groups.

Cylux: Non sequitur? I don’t think so. The question as to why Americans don’t speak French is hugely relevant in the context of your irrelevant comment about the French gift of the Statue of Liberty.

I suspect the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 discouraged any thoughts of enduring ties between America and France. That battle, at Waterloo in June 1815, finally brought to an end the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars which, for Britain, had lasted almost continuously from 1793 through 1815.

Least any think those battles of the Napoleonic wars were pretty minor affairs compared with battles nowadays, not so. At the end of a day’s fighting about 10 hours long, on the allies side, the battle cost Wellington about 15,000 dead or wounded and Blucher about 7,000. Napolean lost 25,000 dead or wounded with 8,000 troops taken prisoner. The sea battle at Trafalgar in 1805 had established Britain’s naval supremacy.

@62 – well if no-one wants to ban all guns then tragedies like this are just the price to pay in modern America. Any discussion is just a futile diversion on the ‘something must be done’ curve when everybody is starting to realise that nothing can be done. One of these days there’s gonna be a Beslan where the gunman does a professional job and takes out the entire school. Having your kids executed should be factored in to the cost of being of a parent. Yeah, ban the Ar-15, a paracetemol for a cancer victim – sweet!

@ 48 Dustin

If we didn’t, who would have stopped the GENOCIDE in the Baltics? How about Iraq in the ’90s? Should I mention Somalia? While yes, some of those were UN missions, we provided more of a force. We never told you to abolish your gun rights, but you’re trying to tell us to? HA!

ROFL. The fucking Baltics? Jesus. You’re like a fucking caricature. When the fuck did the US go into the Baltics? They haven’t had any genocide there since WWII. I take it you mean the Balkans (about 1,500 miles away from the Baltic nations). I seem to remember that there were plenty of right wing nut jobs in the US who opposed that bit of “liberal interventionism”. As for the ’90s Iraq campaign, I’ll bet you good money that I know a fuck sight more about it than you do – I even know where Iraq is.

As for the Somalia debacle – well the less said about that the better. As you can see from the current situation that went well didn’t it?

No, you didn’t ask us to abolish our “gun rights”. The funny thing is, it’s actually pretty easy to obtain firearms in England and Wales if you want to (I can’t speak for the Scots – along with the 6 counties, they run their own legal affairs).

In the last place I lived, out of 100 houses, probably half kept firearms. Some of them even kept firearms that would be illegal in the US. You see, over here, if you have a reason then it’s pretty easy to get your licence amended to allow you to keep silenced rifles. I bet you’d get off on that wouldn’t you?

In Britain there is a presumption in favour of granting shotgun certificates, and as anyone with any real experience of firearms would tell you, a shotgun is much better than an AR-15 in terms of home protection, you see an AR-15 is an assault weapon – the clue is in the name.

What we gave up (well most of us at any rate) is the obsession with military styled firearms and the desire to play at toy soldiers.

Oh, and while you’re at it, the next time you wank on about protecting yourselves from a tyranical government at home – as right wing flakes are wont to do – forget the second amendment and check out the third article instead, along with the various Supreme Court rulings about its application. Then get ready for your trial.

The truth is that the NRA and other gun-nuts just can’t accept that civilised countries try to control the ability of private citizens to extermninate school children.

As for being the “proud owner” of a Bushmaster, do you know what gut blood smells like? A Bushmaster ain’t a toy, it’s a weapon that makes gut blood.I understand why some people need firearms, I’ve kept firearms myself in the past. But as a person who knows what they can do against things other than paper targets, I’d say that anyone who’s “proud” to own a Bushmaster is the last person who should be in control of one.

“Having your kids executed should be factored in to the cost of being of a parent. Yeah, ban the Ar-15, a paracetemol for a cancer victim – sweet!”

You are actually that lacking, you can not understand the difference between walking into a class room/cinima with an AR-15 and a few 100 round mags VS a bolt action hunting rifle, arent you…..

Not really worth responding to, its like speaking to religious fanatatics.

Are you 12? If you can’t distinguish between method and intent then….ffs…i’ve bored myself.

65

Well said, there are thousands of people in England and Wales who own legal shotguns, one of those won gold at the recent Olympics, well done Peter Wilson.

I used to follow clay shooting competitions in the past and what really scares me about the pictures at the beginning of this thread is the gungo body language, something you never see around the competition circuits or in shooting magazines.

David-
“LOL! You Brits sure have forgotten how America supplied your Island with privately owned firearms when Germany threatened your soft lives.”
Germany declared war on you and you never gave us the weapons but we had to pay for them with extortionate loans. Also if you had not joined the war the Germans would have developed the Atom bomb before you, and as for missile technology what would have you done without all those captured Nazi scientists
“Your serf attitude is one of the reason we Americans came here to begin with: to live our lives free from silly sots like you,”
I thought we were pinko socialists and commies

and to be without a King or Queen (God save her), and to have a government of the people, for the people.”
All people, When did you ban slavery. I think we banned it in the UK in the late 18th C and slave trade in 1833. You had to have a war about basic freedoms in the 1860′s

Don’t look now, but British gun crime, and violent crime overall has surpassed the US since implementation of your gun and knife bans. Scotland Yard statistics, not mine.
You are not real. Give me those stats.Only 10 people died of gun crime last year, over 10,000 died in the US.

Good thing all those “peaceful” Muslims are there to protect you from all the CCTV cameras…..right?
Lovely racist comment and you don’t have CCTV
PS It is implementation not implimentation

“Are you 12? If you can’t distinguish between method and intent then….ffs…i’ve bored myself.”

This has to be a troll.

“Unless you were IRA, then it was Britain illegally occupying Belfast, and citizens rightly took up arms against the invader.”
I don’t think so. The majority of NI citizens are people who wanted to stay in the UK. So how can you invade your own country. Many referendums have supported that point. Also the troops were sent in not to attack Catholics but to protect them after the attacks on civil right marches.
Yes there were atrocities in NI but compared to the French in Algeria, US in SE Asia and Central America and the Ruskies in Afghanistan they were isolated and certainly not as sadistic.
Also I served in NI and to discharge a weapon, usually a SLR, you had to go through a complex card system and random gunfights were very unusual.

“Mind you, I’ve no IRA sympathy, but they had a point”
What point?

@ 68 jojo

…what really scares me about the pictures at the beginning of this thread is the gungo body language…

Indeed. It looks very much like “I’ve got a new toy… what can I shoot?”

“Now we have boyfriend/girlfriend guns!!!!” Jesus fucking H Christ. You couldn’t make it up.

65. yfyhvlhvbl

“ROFL. The fucking Baltics? Jesus. You’re like a fucking caricature. When the fuck did the US go into the Baltics? They haven’t had any genocide there since WWII. I take it you mean the Balkans (about 1,500 miles away from the Baltic nations). I seem to remember that there were plenty of right wing nut jobs in the US who opposed that bit of “liberal interventionism”. As for the ’90s Iraq campaign, I’ll bet you good money that I know a fuck sight more about it than you do – I even know where Iraq is.”

Yes you are right, it was late and I was tired. I can admit when I made a mistake. I know where Iraq is, also Afghanistan as I’ve been there, as well as a couple other countries in that area.

“In the last place I lived, out of 100 houses, probably half kept firearms. Some of them even kept firearms that would be illegal in the US. You see, over here, if you have a reason then it’s pretty easy to get your licence amended to allow you to keep silenced rifles. I bet you’d get off on that wouldn’t you?”

Gee, a silenced rifle? I could get that too, so what? What guns can you get that I cant, other than any automatic rifle (meaning fires more than ONE bullet per trigger pull) made on or after May 19th, 1986? I can get ones made after, if I had an occupation that allowed me (such as a gun retailer) and paid a tax.

“In Britain there is a presumption in favour of granting shotgun certificates, and as anyone with any real experience of firearms would tell you, a shotgun is much better than an AR-15 in terms of home protection, you see an AR-15 is an assault weapon – the clue is in the name.”

Tell that to me when you have a huge hole in your body. I have real experience, I am very familiar with the AR15 and it’s history. You see, I’m military.

“What we gave up (well most of us at any rate) is the obsession with military styled firearms and the desire to play at toy soldiers.”

I don’t play soldier, I’m actually a paratrooper in the US military.

“Oh, and while you’re at it, the next time you wank on about protecting yourselves from a tyranical government at home – as right wing flakes are wont to do – forget the second amendment and check out the third article instead, along with the various Supreme Court rulings about its application. Then get ready for your trial.”

Only thing I am worried about other than bad guys, is uneducated people trying to take away my guns. Educate yourself first, look at the majority and not the minority who commit these crimes because they do not care about laws.

“The truth is that NRA and other gun-nuts just can’t accept that civilised countries try to control the ability of private citizens to extermninate school children.”

You’re stupid aren’t you? I know more gun rights supporters who want to fix the problem and not put a “band-aid” on it. Guns are not the problem, the problem is in the parenting!

“As for being the “proud owner” of a Bushmaster, do you know what gut blood smells like? A Bushmaster ain’t a toy, it’s a weapon that makes gut blood.I understand why some people need firearms, I’ve kept firearms myself in the past. But as a person who knows what they can do against things other than paper targets, I’d say that anyone who’s “proud” to own a Bushmaster is the last person who should be in control of one.”

Again, you’re stupid aren’t you? First off, I’m military. My Bushmaster gets used to keep up with my weapons proficiency when my issue rifle is locked in a vault when not used (as it should be). Second, I know what it will do to things other than paper, such as plywood, pumpkins, DEER, cinder block, as well as anything else we use as a target on the farm. Our neighbor also works with the military, always fun to see whose the better shot. But again, please tell me how irresponsible I am for being proud that I own a Bushmaster BRAND AR15 (you do know they make more than an AR15 right?)?

You know, I must be a nut if I taught my little sister about gun safety and how to shoot. Have you even talked to your children about gun safety? I’d rather be a responsible and knowledgeable “gun nut” than an anti-gun idiot:

“In 1993, then-Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer (D) pointed an unloaded pistol, provided by the Maryland State Police, at an unknowing Associated Press reporter during a news conference as he attempted to show the dangerous nature of firearms he wanted to have banned.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-nbc-asked-for-high-capacity-clip/2012/12/26/4c8f77da-4f76-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html)

I have yet to see the NRA point a gun at anybody.

DtP @ 60

If nutjobs are intent on going out and killing kids, regardless of their weapon of choice,

Really it is just the guns though isn’t? I mean all this talk about baseball bats and stuff like that is all shite because when do people go into schools armed with several baseball bats and start smashing kids round the head and body, leaving twenty dead? When has a class of screaming children EVER been forced to walk through a playground with their eyes closed, lest they witness the dead bodies of their classmates? Thomas Hamilton never used a five iron to wipe out a class of primary schoolkids did he? He used a legally owned cache of guns.

You know what? Look at the gun owning/supporting fuckwits on both sides of the Atlantic on this debate. The domestic oppressors that these gunsnuts are supposed to be defending their Nation against? That will be who, exactly? When have ‘the Government’ EVER went against its own people in the US or even pretty close to it? What kind of scenario can your average backward American (or British) survivalist/gunfreak think up that could possibly justify the use of his weapons to defend himself against?

What be a legitimate use of weapons against American law enforcement? What could Obama inflict on you guys that would have you on the street with your cock substitutes? Did these privately owned weapons stop the anti slavery laws? The civil Rights movement? Obamacare? Tax rises? Prohibition? Desegregation? Was Rosa Parks hussled down the bus with a hand gun? A single gay marriage prevented? An abortion stopped? What? What have these millions of guns ever prevented? Did these guns even manage to stop a civil war? Perhaps a 9/11 style attack was thwarted or a mass immigration from Mexico by some gun wielding banjo playing ‘deliverance’ extra? Perhaps the reason South American drug cartels from gaining a foothold in your cities is down to your private gun ownership? Are you a single gun away from a holocaust? Can you imagine a scenario where the disarmed populous of America would be herded into cattle trucks, then onto extermination camps? Don’t be fucking stupid and even if America was to become a NAZI State (no, it is not a NAZI state, not by a long chalk) it would be your average gun totting redneck doing the cattle prodding than anyone else.

And if they ever do what will the gunnuts do against them? Look how lethal those drone thingies are; if the Government of the Day wanted so fucking badly do you guys REALLY think all your weapons would stop that?

The truth is NO ONE really cares about you that much that they would try and change your Country from under your feet using force because since the second amendment was written, your Country has changed out of all recognition, for good or evil, with or without your permission. What’s more every gun in private hands has been powerless to stop that. If the last election taught you guys anything, is that your Country has changed well past the sell by date of the second amendment.

These guns will NEVER be used against foreign powers taking your Republic from you, because the British, French or Russians are not coming for you. Nor are the Canadians or Mexicans either for that matter. Even if they were, even if they were, you have the largest and best-equipped effective army in the World.

As for these ‘domestic’ oppressors? The only real threat from domestic oppressors you guys face is the oppression from the gun owning nutters have over the rest of the Nation. Both in terms of the disproportionate amount of political clout the NRA have and the all too real threat of someone with a gun and a grievance.

Oppressors? Both foreign and domestic? You guys know that to be bullshit, because lets face it, lets really face it? The VAST majority of these guns will be used to snuff out the lives of innocent bystanders whenever a gunuts fuse melts in his head. You know the type, the type of person who thinks he needs a gun because the Government are comming to get him is the last person who should be allowed nothing more lethal than a pea shooter.

75. Richard Carey

Can we all now agree that this is basically a pointless exercise? Nobody’s going to change their mind. The only thing we can agree on is that the other side is a bunch of idiots who can’t listen to reason.

@63

Cylux: Non sequitur? I don’t think so. The question as to why Americans don’t speak French is hugely relevant in the context of your irrelevant comment about the French gift of the Statue of Liberty.

Bob, just so we’re clear, you do understand the difference between assisting someone in a war and providing them with troop support against a mutual enemy as opposed actively invading them and colonising them, don’t you? Because from your ‘hugely relevant’ comment that isn’t altogether clear.

77. Richard Carey

@ 76 Hey Cylux, some of them do speak French – the Cajuns down in Louisiana (less now of course)

In the US as in, I assume most countries there are speed limits. Given that in my state and all of the states surrounding me I can’t legally drive faster than 65 MPH. Why should automobiles have the ability to travel faster than 10 MPH over that speed limit. The number of traffic deaths dwarf gun deaths world wide. And speed is a contributing factor in most if not all traffic deaths.

Until that horror is addressed and the world is made safe from the desolation manufactured by the automobile I think I will cling to my guns. Thank you very much.

78

Good idea, we are surrounded by technology with the potential to kill and maim, so let’s just add more to the mix.

Recap this American research:

“America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are ‘out there’ in the United States, more than one for every adult.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-truth-about-guns-we-need-to-change-constitution-2012-12

The claim that guns in America are necessary to prevent a descent into tyranny is really laughable.

The point of America’s sacrosanct constitution of 1787 was to institute checks and balance to prevent government tyranny – hence the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. Btw that idea of the separation of powers was borrowed from Montesquieu: De l’Esprit des Lois (1748), who based his idea on what he took to be England’s form of government. Recall Voltaire’s description of the English after living here in exile in the 1720s:

“The English are the only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of kings by resisting them; and who, by a series of struggles, have at last established that wise Government where the Prince is all powerful to do good, and, at the same time, is restrained from committing evil; where the nobles are great without insolence, though there are no vassals; and where the people share in the Government without confusion.” Letters on the English (Letter VIII)

The only logical conclusion flowing from the claims that guns are necessary to prevent tyranny is that those making the claim obviously have no faith in the very constitution they invoke for their right to bear arms. If any Americans really want to install tyrannical government in America by force, they could get the weapons they need from the American military:

“The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn’t account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes. . . Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.”
News report in the San Francisco Chronicle 18 May 2003

Hand guns and even assault rifles won’t be of much use deployed against those missing airplanes, tanks and missile launch units.

@ 73 Dustin.

Yeah I know Bushmaster make shit other than the AR-15. But let’s face it, een their hunting rifles are designed to imitate military kit. Military styled hunting rifles. They’re not hunting rifles, they’re wank pieces for fantasists. As for the Remington, well that depends on what kind of 700 we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the civilian hunting version for shooting deer, I have no problems with you keeping that if you live on a farm with deer in the locality – the military spec version is a different issue – but why would you want a milspec weapon anyway? Because this is the thing you don’t get – I’m not anti gun. Firearms are tools. They are designed for a purpose. What I am against is the peculiar fetishization of firearms by some very strange people who shouldn’t be in the same room as a water pistol, and a firearms industry that panders to them, producing kit designed to appeal to fantasists rather than functional tools to do a necessary job. And why do they do this? So they can make money at the expense of the innocent.

You’re clearly not familiar with the stopping power of a shotgun, or its past and present applications in both policing and warfare if you think you’d end up with a large hole in you – unless you’re planning to point it at yourself which as a paratrooper you’ll understand isn’t a good idea. The US military have been using them in both Iraq and Afghanistan… but then you’d know that. Question, when the burglars break in and you have to defend yourself, just how many of them do you reckon there’ll be? Is the US so fucked up that the James boys are expected to call at the farm? If so, you’ve got a lot more problems to deal with in your country that the average european could ever comprehend. Clearly something has gone badly wrong in the promised land. American exceptionalism seems to be going well doesn’t it? Whod a thunk that the US was so far down the path to being the new Somalia.

You must admit it’s pretty fucking sad that you need an AR-15 to keep up your marksmanship skills when off base – clearly the US military is getting something wrong. Marksmanship or lack thereof doesn’t seem to be an especial problem in the British Military, and your average squaddie or bootneck doesn’t seem to feel the need to keep privately owned firearms.

It’s strange, but so many gun nuts seem to think that the non firearm owning public have to educate ourselves. About what exactly? Firearms safety? Done that. About how easy it is for dickheads to obtain firearms? About how kids would be safer if teachers were armed? About how lives would have been saved if everyone had been armed in the Colorado cinema (yeah right, I can just imagine the death toll if the fruitloops had all tried to return fire in a darkened cinema), about how women are supposedly safer if they keep a handgun in their purse (not true).

How about you educate yourselves in the dangers of the mentally ill walking out of gun shops with assault weapons. How about you educate yourselves on the fucking ridiculous death rate in the US from idiots with firearms. You have the honour of being the only developed nation in the top 10 countries for firearms death rates. Shit, you have more people die every year from firearms in the US than in the average small war. You’ve taught your younger sister all about firearms safety – that’s good. Have you taught her what to do if some flake decides to shoot up her school? Get a fucking grip. Would people educating themselves stop Adam Lanza? How about James Eagan Holmes? How about any of the other hundreds of flakes who have decided to just pick up a weapon and pop of a few rounds over the years?

William Donald Schaefer is clearly a fucking idiot – that doesn’t mean you have to be one too.

Fuck this, I’m off to eat something. It’s better than arguing with idiots, after all even if you win, the best that can be said is that you won an argument with an idiot.

82. Richard Carey

@ Bob B,

“Recap this American research”

Let’s not, because you’re preaching to your own personal choir in your head, and you can’t grasp what the issues are.

“The only logical conclusion flowing from the claims that guns are necessary to prevent tyranny is that those making the claim obviously have no faith in the very constitution they invoke for their right to bear arms.”

No it isn’t. It’s that the people in government must be restrained by the Constitution, and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms – pre-existing, not created.

Paul @78

Yeah, Paul that is just candy on a stick. Because we cannot fix every problem known to man, we shouldn’t try to fix any? So why bother attempting to rectify a broken arm until we have a cure for cancer?

China’s new Politburo must be enjoying a good, hearty laugh every time they hear American politicians saying China needs to become democratic, like America.

As for the most effective way to subvert America – promote the drugs trade, block gun control legislation and make sure the American economy keeps heading for the Fiscal Cliff.

How long will it take for China to have the World’s largest economy?

Ignorance is strength.

“Can we all now agree that this is basically a pointless exercise? Nobody’s going to change their mind. The only thing we can agree on is that the other side is a bunch of idiots who can’t listen to reason”
Isn’t that true of every political, religious, sporting and social argument

86. Richard Carey

@ P Diddy,

“Isn’t that true of every political, religious, sporting and social argument”

I’m not sure it is. i think this issue hits the jackpot for liberals. They can combine all their worst traits into one screaming, hate-filled hissy-fit.

In case nobody noticed, American politics has become more polarized over the last 25 years. Try this to see the principal dividing issues:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/

The biggest divide is over social safety nets.

88. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #86:

I’m not sure it is. i think this issue hits the jackpot for gun-nuts. They can combine all their worst traits into one screaming, hate-filled hissy-fit.

FTFY

These were the results from recent Pew Center polling on gun control:

More Americans prioritize gun control above Second Amendment rights by the widest margin since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new poll released Thursday in wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-gun-control-beats-2nd-amendment-85376.html?hp=r5

90. Richard Carey

@ Robin,

You call a ‘gun-nut’ someone who knows what the law says and wants to keep a firearm, in keeping with the law. I used the word ‘liberal’, but I must say I hate to use that word, because you people are not liberal. ‘Liberal’ comes from the same root as ‘liberty’ and you’re against that. You’re collectivists, that’s all.

Ding! the communist slurs have started. I give it 15 more posts until someone validates Godwin’s Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Anyone going to raise me on 15 posts?

Richard Carey @ 90

I used the word ‘liberal’, but I must say I hate to use that word,

Then why use the word to describe people, who are, on this issue at least, not very liberal? Is it because like all Right whingers you throw the term ‘Liberal’ around as a Americanised general insult?

During the Last American election I heard one Republican fuckwit suggesting that his State (can’t remember which one) was becoming as Liberal as ‘North Korea’. Given that these halfwits don’t do irony, I assume that he meant ‘Liberal’ to mean Left wing.

They can combine all their worst traits into one screaming, hate-filled hissy-fit.

Where as for you cunts, all we see is your total contempt for the lives of innocent children whose rights come below your right to own lethal firearms. And you wonder why some of us think you despise children. Here it is in spades, it takes a special kind of arsehole to revel in instruments of death a week and a half over a tragic shooting that touched the hearts of decent people all over the World.

90

The European notion of ‘liberty’ tends to be more in line with the ethos of the French Revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity, which mean the freedom of association and collectivism. The statue of liberty was a gift from the French to the Americans on the basis that the Americans shared their (French) vision, of course they did not. The USA was built, not on liberty, but on imperialism, inequality and social and religious intolerance. There can be no better symbolism for the essence of the USA than the right to bear arms.

No, Jim. It is fixing the most dangerous problem first. Do you deny that the automobile kills more people each year than firearms? No. Then lets rectify the unconscionable loss of life caused by cars. What are you afraid of Jim.

95. Richard Carey

@ Jim,

“Then why use the word to describe people, who are, on this issue at least, not very liberal?”

I usually don’t, but it’s getting to the point when I can’t really be bothered to argue at all.

“..it takes a special kind of arsehole to revel in instruments of death a week and a half over a tragic shooting that touched the hearts of decent people all over the World.”

… which was immediately converted into a political campaign against lawful gun-owners, who have been collectively blamed for a crime they abhor and had nothing to do with.

94

Which particular universal principle states that the most dangerous problem has to be fixed first? Surely, any risk which can be reduced is a step in the right direction.

Paul @ 94

What the fuck are you talking about? We have tried to make cars and driving safer and will continue to do so. It is an ongoing mission.

That does not mean that we cannot tackle more than one problem at a time does it? We can explore ways to make all dangerous acts safer. If someone came up with an idea to make air travelsafer, are you suggesting we do not implement it until reduce car deaths to zero?

Why is that concept so difficult for backward Americans? What is the problem here?

Richard Carey @

I usually don’t, but it’s getting to the point when I can’t really be bothered to argue at all.

Which you admitted way back @ 82 nearly four hours ago, but by the Christ it has not stopped you from trying.

… which was immediately converted into a political campaign against lawful gun-owners, who have been collectively blamed for a crime they abhor and had nothing to do with.

Yes, but they have ‘nothing to do with’ is a bit much, isn’t it? I mean they drive a gun culture that pretty much gave this latest guy a cache of ammo and an assault weapon on a plate, haven’t they? They create a culture that worships the gun and the ‘cold head hand ethos’ that appears to drive these types of mass killings. This guy did not spring out of a vacuum and invent a gun. These guns are openly on sale in America thanks to the culture that these gun freaks generate. Look at the pictures of these morons.

These are not tools to be used by responsible people. Clearly these things are displayed as status symbols in one way or another.

Yes, my point Jim boy. We have made firearms safer. We have made it ever more difficult for law abiding citizens while doing nothing at all to stop criminals from having the very weapons used to murder innocent people every day.

And what is your answer. Always the same silliness. Take weapons away from everyone.

As an aside, why is it you can’t seem to express yourself without sliding into profanities or using snide, belittling remarks? I have not insulted you or your nationality. I have treated you with respect and dignity I assume are you are entitled to. Is it your native habit of such disrespect? It cements in my mind at least that though we may have in the past had familial bonds, they have long been broken. I do not comment on the troubles in the UK, nor am I so boorish as to spout of on the cultural flaws of England, to an Englishman. Your attitude shows that you have a lesser breeding.

100. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #90:

You call a ‘gun-nut’ someone who knows what the law says and wants to keep a firearm, in keeping with the law

No; since that description isn’t far from including me.

I refer to people like Wayne LaPierre as gun-nuts; poeple who believe that the answer to the problems caused by ready availability of guns is to add more guns to the mix; who think that adding an armed agent of the state to every classroom (shouldn’t you libertarians be against that on principle?) is a sensible solution. It’d be a bit of a bummer of one of them went postal, wouldn’t it?

Look at the stats that appear in my comment above; if the problem isn’t the ready availability of guns per se, it’s their ready availability to US citizens. US gun murders per annum in 5 figures; UK gun murders per annum in two figures. And (from previous comments – look for them) the states with the most libertarian gun laws are those with the highest gun crime rates.

Oh, and if it pleases you to deny that I am a liberal because I think there’s a better way than allowing schoolchildren to be slaughtered – go to it.

101. Richard Carey

@ Paul,

please don’t judge all Englishmen by the obnoxious comments of some people on this blog.

102. Heavily Armed Colonial

Well of course the British here want Americans to abolish the Second Amendment. The British no longer have a single one of the rights that Americans possess thanks to the US Bill of Rights.

Having a good laugh at the rotten tooth Brits being so jealous over the US’s gun policies! LOL!!

Andrew B: “Having a good laugh at the rotten tooth Brits being so jealous over the US’s gun policies! LOL!!”

Absolutely.

America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s.

San Francisco is considered dangerously liberal in America, not least because the city authorities there keep trying to introduce gun control ordinances – the latest ordinance attempts to ban hollow-nosed bullets which inflict terrible wounds although that could get struck down in the courts as unconstitutional.

These liberal attitudes are affecting business in the city. So many Americans are trying to move there that by news reports housing is the most expensive of any metropolitan area in the country. The city also has the most expensive average monthly rent of anywhere in the US. As Mrs T used to say: You can’t buck the market.

which was immediately converted into a political campaign against lawful gun-owners, who have been collectively blamed for a crime they abhor and had nothing to do with.

Yes, but they have ‘nothing to do with’ is a bit much, isn’t it? I mean they drive a gun culture that pretty much gave this latest guy a cache of ammo and an assault weapon on a plate, haven’t they?

Well, the mother of the killer, whom ended up as his first victim, was one of these lawful gun-owners, and it was her weapon that was used.

For now, I am just going to pose some questions I want answered, answer how you want.

What do you define as a “cache of ammo?” How about “military characteristics” vs those features which have legitimate use (example: collapsible stocks)?

ARE GUNS REALLY THE PROBLEM, OR IS IT THE PARENTING?

107. Robin Levett

@Dustin #106:

ARE GUNS REALLY THE PROBLEM, OR IS IT THE PARENTING?

So your view is that the problem is that Americans are appalling parents – far worse than Europeans?

Dustin: “ARE GUNS REALLY THE PROBLEM, OR IS IT THE PARENTING?”

Yeah – anything can be blamed on parents or their parents before them going right back to Adam and Eve when evil started after Cane killed Abel. But if guns are easy to access, it is so much easier to go around killing people.

When they passed that second amendment in 1791, the only small arms available were single shot pistols and barrel-loaded muskets. With those, trained troopers were expected to be able to get off as many as three shots a minute. There were no revolvers or breech-loading and lever-action rifles, let alone machine guns.

To quote someone on here: “America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s.”

Well, that would make sense since we have 5 times the population.

110. Richard Carey

@ Bob b,

“the latest ordinance attempts to ban hollow-nosed bullets which inflict terrible wounds”

Standard issue to Met Police:

http://www.channel4.com/news/hollow-point-bullets-to-be-standard-issue-for-met-police

109:”Well, that would make sense since we have 5 times the population.”

No. The quote is: America’s murder RATE is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s.

That is a quote from American research – see the link @22.

112. Richard Carey

@ Andrew B,

I hope you realise the 2nd Amendment is not the only thing on the Bill of Rights, and the rest of it has been as good as shredded?

These dentally-impaired Brits are not actually jealous of your gun rights, they do not understand them, having had their own rights, which were the same in the past, taken away ever so slowly during the 20th century, first through certification, then by removing self-defence as a legitimate reason to possess a firearm, then, once people were largely out of the habit, and with crime rates still low, they grabbed all the handguns after a similar massacre. The lesson is; don’t compromise.

113. Richard Carey

@ 111 Bob B,

“America’s murder RATE is four times higher than Britain’s”

overall, but it’s lower in some states, such as Hawaii, New Hampshire, Vermont etc.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people in the pictures are socially inadequate. However, they are not our social inadequates and I don’t get why people in this country get so bothered about an issue that does not affect them and they have zero influence over. Nothing will change in the U.S. until the people there want it to change. There is precious little evidence that they do want to change their gun laws. Agreement in the House, Senate, President and Supreme Court is just not going to happen.

So the slaughter will continue and after each one the seed will be sown in new minds that cutting children in two with an assault weapon could be a cool way for five minutes of fame. Freedom for a child to come home from school safe is no freedom at all. Some day the people and not the politicians will balance the competing risks and decide that they would rather have more restrictive gun control.

The thing I find strange in the whole so-called debate is how many people speak in absolutes. Yet hardly anyone believes there is absolute right for everyone to hold whatever arms they want. The mentally ill and children (not the same thing) do not enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Who believes that everyone should have the right to own a man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) small SAM? The risk of someone using one to shoot an airliner out of the sky for a laugh would be too great. So no matter what one thinks about arms nearly everyone is agreed that there is not an absolute right to arms. A balance over what arms and who can own them is the de facto system. What Americans need to decide and only they can decide is if the current balance is the correct one.

In some respects, I can understand Americans feeling as if they are being lectured to by outsiders. Kinda because it is true. Moreover, shouting at people when those same people like in the pictures believe all the BS propaganda that they have been fed as their history all their lives is never going to achieve anything. Empires are like that, they create and believe their own propaganda. However, all empires end and the propaganda falls apart under scrutiny.

Richard Carey: “Standard issue to Met Police”

Yes I deplore it, especially when there are many unsettled public issues over the ways that police in Britain have used guns. Try this one:

James Ashley was in bed and unarmed when officers burst into his flat in Sussex at 4am on 15 January 1998.

Ashley, 39, was shot – in front of his girlfriend – at the flat in St Leonards after incorrect intelligence reports suggested he might be armed.

Two subsequent investigations into the affair criticised Sussex police for methods used in gathering intelligence, planning and executing the raid.

Yet no-one has been convicted of any wrongdoing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3264957.stm

The killing of Mark Saunders was another case and Jean Charles de Menezes, a completely innocent man, was yet another.

The Mail report on the inquest on the shooting of the Mark Saunders included this:

“He was hopelessly drunk when he was hit in the head and chest by five ­of the bullets fired by seven policemen stationed in nearby houses. . . the inquest was told that police were carrying more than 100 guns, including high-velocity rifles, 9mm Glock self-loading pistols and MP5 carbines, as well as Tasers and CS gas. A total of 59 armed officers were posted around the house.”

Most of the British public are pleased that our police are not routinely armed.

Yeah, RATE. Deaths per year, or deaths per day. Like miles per hour… f’n rate!

117. Mediastinum

@ 113

Yet their firearm homicide rates are still higher (per 100,000).

Uk 0.04

Hawaii 0.07

New Hampshire 0.53

Vermont 0.75

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Some police with guns treat that as a licence to kill as this recent news report shows:

NEW YORK — An unarmed 22-year-old man shot and killed by a New York City police officer during a traffic stop in Queens Thursday morning was a member of the New York Army National Guard, authorities said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/noel-polanco-national-guardsman_n_1940259.html

Another once notorious case:

Amadou Bailo Diallo (September 2, 1975 – February 4, 1999) was a 23-year-old immigrant from Guinea who was shot and killed in New York City on February 4, 1999 by four New York City Police Department plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss, who fired a combined total of 41 shots, 19 of which struck Diallo, outside 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section of The Bronx. [Wikipedia]

Part of the explanation is that once a gun culture takes hold, it becomes rational for police to expect that anyone making an entirely innocent movement is reaching for a gum. At any subsequent inquest, the police only have to say that they genuinely believed their life was in danger, which is impossible to disprove. And so the gun killing goes on.

@114 – socially inadequate? Man, there are some pompous attitudes on this site. You recant statistics and politics like you live here.

You may find this hard to believe but few Americans want to be like the Brits, the French or the the Germans. We’re f’ed up, inadequate, stupid, murderous, but most of all we’re not European and don’t want to be.

With 300 million guns in the states, one should think there would be far more deaths than 4x Britain’s. What, do you have 5 handguns that you pass around to shoot each other with? You’d think, considering there must be 100000x the guns in the US than in the UK that someone would say, “crap, considering all the guns, those Americans are pretty safe”. Let’s hear some stats on ‘deaths per gun” by country.

I’ve heard all the banter about the crazy idea of self-defense from an non-existent or outdated threat from a make-believe boogie man, but I’ll consider the source. You Brits, and all of Europe for that matter, are sheep. You have to believe in gun control because you don’t have a choice. Oh, you act like you did but you didn’t. You’re toothless, and we don’t want to be like you.

This is the last you’ll hear of me on this topic, but before I go, if you’d like my guns – no problem. I’ll hand them over to the first Limey to jump in one of those leaky sailing ships – and come over and take it! But you need to bring your hay rakes and pocket knives, because everybody knows – you can’t buy a gun…

Cheers!

188: “You have to believe in gun control because you don’t have a choice.”

That’s untrue. In Britain, most of us really don’t have this love for guns. Polling shows consistently strong public support for gun control and we prefer our police to be unarmed. For an informed view on British opinions and political sentiments about guns, try this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

The latest Pew Centre poll, as reported @89, showed: “More Americans prioritize gun control above Second Amendment rights.”

“Well of course the British here want Americans to abolish the Second Amendment. The British no longer have a single one of the rights that Americans possess thanks to the US Bill of Rights.”

“Having a good laugh at the rotten tooth Brits being so jealous over the US’s gun policies! LOL!!”

Its like listening to children. Of all the people I know who owns firearms, you will never hear one talking about them other than to people who also own them, and only in a technical manner, you will never see one posing in a picture like rambo, you would never even know they own them, unless you become a close freind. The American mentality ould be funny if it was not responsible for so much death.

122. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #113:

“America’s murder RATE is four times higher than Britain’s”

overall, but it’s lower in some states, such as Hawaii, New Hampshire, Vermont etc.

Hawaii’s 2011 rate was comparable to (but still higher than) the UK’s; but the state’s population is comparatively minute, so we’re talking, for 2011, about 1 andgun murder. In 2010, they had rather more…

The others – significantly higher rate than the UK; as in many times. Our rate was c.063/100,000 for 2011 NH was 0.53, and the rest had even more.

However, it is true that those states had lower gun murder rates than the rest of the USA; and they are the states with the tightest gun control. What was your point?

123. Robin Levett

@RM George #118:

With 300 million guns in the states, one should think there would be far more deaths than 4x Britain’s

In the UK last year there were 38 gun murders. In the US there were just south of 11,500, 300 times more. There are only 5 times as many of you as there are of us; so the rate is 60 times ours – not 4x.

Your arguments would be more convincing if they had the merit of actually being based on something approaching the facts.

Paul @ 99

A guy walks into a school and blows away twenty school kids and you guys think that acceptable? We are not talking about accidents or errors of judgements here, we are talking about taking weapons into a school and not wiping out evil oppressors from foreign shores or domestic tyrants, but children, unarmed children at that. This was a deliberate and premeditated act. All this talk about protecting your Nation from tyrants, but the innocent are taking the bullets, Paul.

People in cinemas, school houses and firemen, not King George’s redcoats, Queen Elizabeth’s Royal Marines or the French Foreign Legion or Even Stalin’s red army, but little kids learning to read and write. When the original founding fathers amended the constitution, do you really think that they intended children to be wiped out? Do you really think if you could transport the framers of the constitution to 2012 and show them the fruits of their days work, do you really think they would have conceded that was a price worth paying? Bollocks, NO-ONE involved in creating the American constitution ever meant weapons to be readily available to be used in family disputes and a class of children dead. You could argue all day and night but no reasonable person would argue that the framers intended firearms to be worshipped in the way that these people do. None of the framers expected the type of weapons available today to be readily available to people with mental illness.

It cements in my mind at least that though we may have in the past had familial bonds, they have long been broken.

Yeah, that is correct. There is no ‘special relationship’ anymore on either side of the Atlantic. There used to be, of course, but really, the only people who cling to that on this side of the pond are those on the Right who hate British culture and want to Americanize every aspect of our lives.

I do not comment on the troubles in the UK, nor am I so boorish as to spout of on the cultural flaws of England, to an Englishman.

Feel free to tell us what you think our problems are and you will get a fair hearing, we may even agree on many of them.

HAC @ 102

The British no longer have a single one of the rights that Americans possess thanks to the US Bill of Rights

And what ‘Rights’ have you got that we have ‘lost’ thanks to your gun ownership?

Fucking moron.

120

‘you will never see one (gun owner) posing in a picture like rambo’. You mean like the above photos LOL.

To all those debating who are based in the USA. -

LC is a political blog where a large number of the topics discuss issues from all over the globe, we debated at length about Anders Breivik and, nearer home, Raoul Moat. It is clear, at least to most of us, that the incident at Newton is an appropriate topic, remember, one of the victims was the child of British couple. If you want to join-in on a debate about British politics/economy/culture there is no problem, but we in the UK will continue to excercise our freedom to debate about the USA.

RM George @ 118

You have to believe in gun control because you don’t have a choice. Oh, you act like you did but you didn’t.

We have a fully functioning democratic system and if we wanted to relax our gun laws to the same level as you do, we could and in fact morons like Carey et al have their say all the time, but no political Party wants to take up the cudgels, at the moment at the least, for a liberalisation of those laws.

Every now and then, we get a sharp reminder of why we need tight gun laws and every now and then we also see why the Americanisation of our culture and political system.

Nobody wants people who are too stupid to understand how to compare murder rates to own lethal weapons in our Country.

most of all we’re not European and don’t want to be

Yeah, about that? I bet you never thought you guys would have a European health care system eithe. Better cling to guns a bit longer there sparky, I suppose your guns helped stop Obama in his tracks? but the demography of your Country is changing an looks less ‘European’ every election, maybe your guns aren’t as safe as you think.

“‘you will never see one (gun owner) posing in a picture like rambo’. You mean like the above photos LOL.”

Yes. Thats what I mean, out of the many british I know who own firearms not one would be caught dead in such a picture, there are certainly pictures of them on shoots with a gun over there shoulder, thats more to do with who is stood next to them, taking a picture to remember the day, than the glorification of their gun.

Infact the only Brits who come to mind that would pose in such a fashion are the wanabe gangsters in london/Manchester with there illegal/and or fake guns..says a lot.

Infact the only Brits who come to mind that would pose in such a fashion are the wanabe gangsters in london/Manchester with there illegal/and or fake guns..says a lot.

Funnily enough the only person I know that’s ever shown me a picture of them posing with a gun (and shades to try and look like a proper hard case), was a wannabe gangster while I was at uni in Salford…

Blah @ 127

About the only thing in British culture that comes close to that type of posturing (with the same undertones of violence) is those cunts with status dogs.

I’m not sure it’s possible to be insulted by Americans. Now Ozzies and Kiwis put some effort in and also kick our butts in various sporting arenas but Americans…err..nope, drawn a blank. Although the teeth thing is quite true. I guess this whole ‘debate’ may have a correlation to the relative amount of booze consumed in our two nations, namely, we drink absolutely loads because the worst thing that’s gonna happen is a punch in the face and getting barred from your local whereas in America they drink a lot less because they’re liable to get accidently repeatedly shot in the head for impuning another man’s stetson.

OT – but the best sledge i’ve heard was from Mark Waugh to Phil Tufnell, ‘can I borrow your brain mate, i’m building an idiot’. Huzzah!

Dicky you are jesting. You and your like are no different from the rest of us mortals.
C’mon self analysis and read your posts, other rightists and the “left but brigade”. No different in intransience and bigotry. In fact the comment above shows that intolerance.

It’s not so much intolerance and there but for the Grace of God. I’ve had my head stoved in too many times to be able to resile from the fact that if I were a Yank i’d be dead by now. I lived in Bransholme for 2 years whilst at University and I got mugged 3 times (not bad really, bust lip, kicks to the ribs etc) but had there been a proliferation of guns coupled with the vast amounts of crack and temmazies (the drug of choice for the cheap skates as Granny can get it for free) then hallucinatory boredom would have kicked in and us, being the la di da stooodents that we were, would have been easy meat just out of principle.

For all the stats above, it shows that any form of gun control isn’t gonna work and I guess I just find it all upsetting but as with much politics these days, if it’s someone else’s problem then it isn’t mine. The whole bottom line though is that some utter scumbag went out to kill kids and was quite successful. At least Tim McVeigh went for the guys who took the government shilling. Yeah, anyway, it’s tabloid politics in someone else’s country – sod ‘em.

Sorry DTP but my comment was addressed to tricky dicky carey and his comments about liberals and hissy fits.

@118

This is the last you’ll hear of me on this topic, but before I go, if you’d like my guns – no problem. I’ll hand them over to the first Limey to jump in one of those leaky sailing ships – and come over and take it! But you need to bring your hay rakes and pocket knives, because everybody knows – you can’t buy a gun…

Well as has already been pointed out in the comments, you actually can buy a gun in the UK, though not an assault rifle mind you. Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?

@133 – i’ve not got a hay rake either! Damn it – cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war with cullenders and spatulas at the ready, lads!

RM George: ‘The cold hard fact is that there are more violent crimes committed in the US with baseball bats…’

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case here in Britain as well. But at least they play baseball in the USA; I’m sure that in Britain 99 per cent of baseball bats are purchased with the specific purpose in mind of whacking somebody.

@RM George

“With 300 million guns in the states, one should think there would be far more deaths than 4x Britain’s…”

And one would be correct in thinking that. Relevant statistics tend to be a good starting place when considering these issues. Firearm-related deaths in the UK occur at a rate of 0.25 per 100K, compared to the US figure of 10.2 per 100K, so that’s a per-capita firearm-related death rate about 40 times higher in the US.

“You’d think, considering there must be 100000x the guns in the US than in the UK that someone would say, “crap, considering all the guns, those Americans are pretty safe”. ”

Here we move from relevant statistics to accurate statistics. You’ll find that about 1.8 million guns are owned in the UK, so that’s about 160 times more guns in the US; a number slightly smaller than 100,000, which is why we tend to think “when will they ever learn?”. That and the 32,000 firearms deaths.

“Let’s hear some stats on ‘deaths per gun” by country.”

I assume that was a rhetorical question that you figured couldn’t be answered, or would somehow support loose gun policy in the US? It turns out however, that this isn’t difficult to look up. For the US and the UK, the gun ownership stats are above, and the total firearm-related deaths amount to about 32,000 in the US (according to the CDC), and for the UK the number tends to work out at about 150 (the small magnitude of this number means there can be significant year-to-year variations). When you do all the maths, this leaves the US with a slightly higher per gun death rate (about 30% higher). This result supports tighter gun control (in fact, it suggests that the US should adopt tighter gun control than the UK, because apparently you kill more people with each individual weapon, and not just be sheer volume of weapons), because it shows that when gun numbers go up, so do deaths (pretty linearly too).

“…because everybody knows – you can’t buy a gun…”

I guess it can’t hurt to point it out yet again, just in case it didn’t sink in the last thousand times; you can buy a gun in the UK.

I’ve been keeping a close eye on how the right-wing media and Conservative pressure groups have been helping the US pro gun lobby deflect attention away from gun control to violence in entertainment.
The Parents Television Council have sent their founder Dan Isset to appear on Fox News to point the finger of blame for Connecticut squarley at Hollywood. It’s no secret that the PTC has many Republican supporters many of whom will no doubt be pro gun ownership so it’s unsurprising they are making a big deal of blaming entertainment for this appaling tragedy.

137

Yep, as Pete Atkin notes in ‘Driving through mythical America’ “Cheetah slowly taught John Wayne to move”

133. Cylux
“Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?”

Actually, you’re wrong:

“Less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer and the bomb was set to detonate around 2 ‘o clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn’t detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn’t usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night it dropped below freezing and the bomb didn’t detonate. I was very lucky, but I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country.” – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
(http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/19/Flashback-Dianne-Feinstein-s-own-conceal-carry-permit-story)

Would you like more proof, such as the one from New York? How about those in the political sphere, whose children’s school has armed security? How about those not in the political sphere yelling for more control, who may not have a gun themselves but have ARMED SECURITY?

And going back to my earlier questions, which as of post number 135 have NOT been answered, YES. Yes we can blame parents. How many kids under 17 are playing (for example, one of the biggest knowing and selling games) Call of Duty Black Ops 2? A game which (not sure how you Brits rate games, or if you do) is rated M for MATURE (17+ years of age). How many 10 year old kids understand the difference of a game versus real life? How desensitized to the blood and gore are we letting our children becoming when the games are getting more realistic? How many times does a CHILD get his way because the parents give in, which teaches the kid to throw a tantrum to get his way. Better parenting (not just discipline, but bonding as a family also) will do more for more problems than just gun control.

I’ve answered your “rebuttal” (if you can call it that), how about my other questions?

“Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?”

Actually, you’re wrong:… Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home

The mind boggles.
Plus you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a single word from Breitbart.com, they got the cray cray bad.

On buying a gun legally in Britain, try this:

“Rules on gunbuying and licencing in the UK”
http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm

“140. Cylux

“Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?”

Actually, you’re wrong:… Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home

The mind boggles.
Plus you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a single word from Breitbart.com, they got the cray cray bad.”

So, VIDEO proof is not enough? The reason I linked to that website was for the VIDEO PROOF. But please, refute that.

“140. Cylux

“Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?”

Actually, you’re wrong:… Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home

The mind boggles.
Plus you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a single word from Breitbart.com, they got the cray cray bad.”

So VIDEO PROOF is not enough? I linked to that website for the video. But please feel free to refute video evidence.

140. Cylux

“Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?”

Actually, you’re wrong:… Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home

The mind boggles.
Plus you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a single word from Breitbart.com, they got the cray cray bad.

Apparently, VIDEO PROOF is not enough? I linked to that website for the video, which is of someone wanting to take away guns.

@144 I don’t think that video proves what you think it proves.

I shudder to think what the death toll would have been in the London riots last year if guns had been easily available.

quote 147
“I shudder to think what the death toll would have been in the London riots last year if guns had been easily available.”

Personal residences burned, rape, 5 dead, 16 injured and 200 million Pounds in property damage.

Maybe if guns were easily available there wouldn’t have been any riots at all! It takes a lot more nerve to approach an armed neighborhood than an unarmed one.

It’s funny what kind of violence seems acceptable in the UK.

Hey, what might make sense since forfeiting your UK gun rights seems to have worked out so well, limit the other rights that give you problems. Why not limit your ability to assemble, or how about limiting free speech – (these may already controlled by the government, not sure)? That should keep those pesky riots from breaking out.

Sheep!

“Maybe if guns were easily available there wouldn’t have been any riots at all! It takes a lot more nerve to approach an armed neighborhood than an unarmed one.”

Yea, the LA riots back you up on that point, over a billion $ in damages and it only took the army to stop..

140

After reading my kids the Hansel and Gretel story, the eldest wanted to find two smaller kids to eat.

Actually if we’re being pedantic, they didn’t. An “assault rifle” is a fully automatic weapon firing a cartidge of intermediate power between a rifle cartidge and a sub machine gun cartridge.

These guns are all semi automatic; fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the USA since the 1930s.

These guns are what in the USA would be classified as “assault weapons” which is a legal term meaning a semi automatic rifle with certain cosmetic characteristics such as a pistol grip and a socket for a bayonet.

“Personal residences burned, rape, 5 dead, 16 injured and 200 million Poleunds in property damage.”
Rape and 5 dead ? Where did you get those figures Michelle ?
Poleunds, is this a new currency
“Sheep ?”
Those pesky Viet Cong gave you a beating eh.
Before you ask why we were not Vietnam
Answer
Because the Vietnamese were doing alright on their own.
When we were in the services in the 70′s, a great way of winding up US rangers.
Also only two anti commie insurgency wars were ever won. Borneo and Malaya, both by the pussy Brits not by loud mouth, trigger happy, pricks who can’t keep it in their trousers.
Merry X mas

148: “It’s funny what kind of violence seems acceptable in the UK.”

That’s more fantasy.

“The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany’s 0.21 (3 times higher).” [Wikipedia]

Regular polling shows that we pref our Police not to be routinely armed, not least because of unresolved public issues over how the Police have used guns – see my post @115.

Sir P. Diddy, I do apologize about misspelling Pounds. It was late; I was tired but thanks for pointing it out. Apparently you were able to glean the meaning of what I was saying. As far as the “sheep” jab, I was hoping that didn’t go through. Again, it was late and I thought it was funny…

Anyway, as far as where I got those figures; well, just do a Google search on “Personal residences burned, rape, 5 dead, 16 injured and 200 million Pounds in property damage”. Wikipedia should jump to the top with the next two results being UK new sites. I don’t typically like Wikipedia, but people on this site seem to reference it a lot.

My only point is you don’t start limiting rights for everyone in a country based on the wrong doings of a miniscule fraction of the population. What’s to keep a government that has disarmed its people from slowly eroding the other rights that you come to expect? I’m not talking all at once, but slowly, gradually. You know, for your own safety. I know it’s a cliché, but a government that provides everything can also take everything away.

Your success in Borneo and Malaya seems to bring you great pride, so I’ll have to look them up. Vietnam, as all wars, was tragic. Everyone in the US knows someone personally who was lost in that war. If you were involved, thanks for your service. If not I’m glad you are/were able to sit in the global ‘grandstand’ and make jokes.
Cheers,
mike

Bob B. – wasn’t that what you implied @ 147 with the comment “I shudder to think what the death toll would have been in the London riots last year if guns had been easily available.”

The stats have been passed around and around, we’ve all seen them.

You have stated time and again that “polling shows” you and the UK are happy with the results even though, my point, an armed community may have resulted in no riot at all.

So I stand by my comment; It’s funny what kind of violence seems acceptable in the UK.

About the Vietnam War, the truth is that no affluent industrialised country has yet figured out a sure way of winning what have been called asymmetric or fourth generation wars.

The French lost colonial wars in Indo-China and Algeria. Possessing nuclear weapons is not an effective deterrent – neither personal guns nor nuclear weapons prevented the 9/11 atrocity in America and nuclear weapons didn’t stop the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005. Personal guns didn’t stop Timothy McVeigh from bombing a government building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 people.

Short of another civil war, all this stuff about personal guns preventing government tyranny in America is a load of proverbial BS. The Confederacy lost the civil war, as I recall, after never fully recovering from its defeat at Gettysburg.

The whole point of the separation of powers in the US Constitution and regular elections was to prevent government tyranny. If that doesn’t work, guns will only install some kind of military junta.

For an illuminating analysis of asymmetric warfare, try William Lind (ex US Marine Corps) on: Understanding Fourth Generation War:
http://antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

Btw because of Oliver Cromwell and ever since Wellington’s stint as Prime Minister 1828/30 and briefly in 1834, we don’t like our military men as political leaders in Britain. As Wellington is reputed to have said after his first Cabinet meeting as PM: “An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.”

But Americans like military men in politics – since WW2: George Marshall, Eisenhower, Alexander Haig, Colin Powell . . . Mind you, Marshall is credited with the Marshall Plan and the Eisenhower administration is credited with the Interstate Highway Programme, aptly described as the largest public works programme since the building of the Pyramids in ancient Egypt.

156 Mike G: “You have stated time and again that ‘polling shows’ you and the UK are happy with the results even though, my point, an armed community may have resulted in no riot at all.”

That’s more fantasy stuff. Personal gun ownership in America didn’t prevent the Los Angeles riots in 1992.

According to the Wikipedia entry: “The rioting ended after soldiers from the California Army National Guard, along with US Marines from Camp Pendleton were called in to stop the rioting. In total, 53 people were killed during the riots and over two thousand people were injured.”

Bob, your discussions seem logical to a point, but are you thinking that nuclear weapon were ever intended to stop such events as 9/11, or 7/7? To say they aren’t or never were a deterrent, or were meant to capture covert terrorist acts seem like an odd comment. To take you logic a little further the police did’t stop them either therefor we should do away with them… right? Medicine hasn’t cured cancer, so medicine is pointless.

The historical fact is, people are barbaric toward one another – they always have been and probably always will be. Look at the americans treatment of the indians, to slavery, or English history. It’s as violent as any. Do you need recent examples, Rwanda, Syria, Palestine… the list goes on and on. And all i can think is “there but for the grace of god go I”.

We like to sit in our leather chairs in front of our fireplaces and think we’re above it all. Boy, if we would all just give up our guns. That would solve all the worlds problems. I don’t think humans are that advanced.

Medicine serves a purpose, police serve a purpose, as do nuc’s, and personal protection firearms.

And that brings me back to point. The erosion of individual rights. In a nutshell – I’m against it.

Oh, Bob – one last follow up. Riots happen, I realize that. I wasn’t suggesting that gun ownership would stop all riots, but their duration and magnitude may be affected. I can tell you that I and my family would feel much safer during a riot armed than unarmed.

I am a law abiding citizen with only a few traffic ticket. What these laws are proposing is to disarm men and families like me. Criminals won’t turn in their weapons. Is it really MY guns you fear, or guns in and of themselves.

Mike G

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was a NATO strategy intended to deter a Soviet blitzkrieg attack across the north German plane when the Warsaw Pact countries had overwhelming superiority in tanks and other armour. NATO countries were unwilling to afford military parity to counter that threat and resorted to the MAD strategy as the cheaper alternative.

MAD was successful in that it did prevent a Soviet blitzkrieg attack – and the Soviets were unable to afford to counter the multiple threats of cruise missiles in the 1980s. But suppose, as seems likely, future military threats are from persistent threats and acts of terrorism, and the like, or from cyber warfare, then nuclear weapons are useless, as are civilians armed with handguns and assault rifles.

All that does is to enable social psychopaths to go around killing people or kids for kicks. The second amendment’s right to arms didn’t stop Timothy McVeigh – or 9/11 or the Los Angeles riots of 1992 or America’s horrific rate of gun homicides.

“146. Cylux
@144 I don’t think that video proves what you think it proves.”

Then please tell us what it means. Since you must know what it really means, other than the fact it admits the creator of this ban needed a firearm to protect herself from a threat? When she has said while talking about concealed carry, this comes after the shooting in Colorado: “”…and maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people. These are people in a theater.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjBW4Cn7Xo)

Now please, PLEASE (since nobody can seem to answer my questions from post 106, besides my parenting one) riddle me this: Why did she get a concealed permit in the first place? If people with a concealed handgun will only cause a firefight, WHY DID SHE GET ONE?

“151. steveb
140 After reading my kids the Hansel and Gretel story, the eldest wanted to find two smaller kids to eat.”

While a book is a form of media, it is AUDITORY and not VISUAL. With a few exceptions, MOST everything is learned by watching. Example, how did you learn to write the letter “A” in school? You learned by WATCHING someone write the letter “A” on a chalk board (if you’re old, marker/white board for the younger people). But nice try. Good job for being a parent and spending time with your children. You are better off reading Dave Grossman’s book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” and “On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace” (which I have read). Unfortunately, I gave my copy of the second book to a friend to read, so I will not pull up the research in that book, I’ll let you be smart enough to do your own and buy the book or borrow it, I’m sure you’re smart enough, right?

“152. Phil Hunt
fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the USA since the 1930s.”

Not true, any automatic, or automatic sear, made BEFORE May 19th, 1986 are legal, if it is made on or after that date it is legal provided you call into a special category (class 3 dealer) and pay a very (I believe minimum was $5,000 per year) Special Occupation Tax (SOT) which is paid every year. This is also the same category as your suppressors. But do not confuse owning an automatic or suppressor with having to pay this tax annually with the purchase stamp of $200. If you need help with clarification, I will be happy to help, as I myself had to seek help when I first familiarized myself with ALL the gun laws at the federal level, down to my state and city laws.

I will re-state my previous questions which you refuse to answer:
What do you define as a “cache of ammo?” How about “military characteristics” vs those features which have legitimate use (example: collapsible stocks, bi-pods, optics such as a scope or red-dot)? *yes, I added more examples this time to the question*

I leave you with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglpt8hpyg

I wasn’t suggesting that gun ownership would stop all riots

As has been stated many times before, it is still quite legal to own guns in the UK, limited variety mind you, although since shotguns fit into this category I’m not sure how much stopping power you think you’ll be bereft of if the states were to follow similar standards of gun control.

Criminals won’t turn in their weapons.

Since the changes in the law after the Dunblane massacre there was an amnesty, and police orders from that point were to collect and destroy any illegal firearms encountered in the course of their duties. Those who spurned the amnesty to get rid of their now illegal weapons began sweating after a couple years, knowing that they could face jail time if their secret stash was discovered, but they were also damned if they were going to let their former legal purchase be a complete waste of money, so they did the only logical thing available to them – they sold their weapons to criminals. This caused a spike in gun proliferation among criminals (which thankfully were largely used against one another) but since then, thanks to the police’s policy of destroying the weapons, supply has become dire. With it being widely reported that the majority of illegal weapons are owned by neutral ‘rental’ groups who loan their shooters to gangs for a fee, and often leads to rival gangs shooting each other up with the same gun. The point of this rather long-winded passage is that no, criminals won’t give up their guns, but with the right methodology by the police that wont matter.

Furthermore, these sorts of massacres have by the great majority been committed by suburbanite white males who prior to going nuts with whatever weapons they had access to, were hardly hardened criminals. In short it’s not gangbangers blowing away classrooms of school children, it’s the sons of well-to-do law-abiding gun owning families.

“163. Cylux
Furthermore, these sorts of massacres have by the great majority been committed by suburbanite white males who prior to going nuts with whatever weapons they had access to, were hardly hardened criminals. In short it’s not gangbangers blowing away classrooms of school children, it’s the sons of well-to-do law-abiding gun owning families.”

ill-informed aren’t you? Here is evidence to refute your claim:

Virgina Tech shooting, Asian.
“On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho opened fire in a dormitory and classroom building on the Virginia Tech campus, killing 32 people before committing suicide. It was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.”
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/cho_seunghui/index.html)

Fort Hood shooting, Middle Eastern.
“Survivors of the rampage that killed 13 and wounded 30 said the suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” — “God is great!” in Arabic — before opening fire, base commander Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572448,00.html)

Beltway snipers, both black.
“Convicted D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo said in a newspaper interview published Sunday that the devastated reaction of a victim’s husband made him feel like “the worst piece of scum.”
(http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/30/beltway-sniper-malvo-felt-like-worst-piece-of-scum/)

Here are three of the most recent shootings. All are not white, all are convicted in the shootings against innocent people. I am sure I can find more if we go back in history, as well as whites. Crime is not racist, he affects all races just the same.

Bob, Cylux – Gun restriction has not been proven to work – period. Crazy people and criminals still get their hands on guns, the only ones left unarmed are the law abiding casualties. I stand by my statement that you can’t buy guns, I will add however, for personal protection. I don’t want to rely on a 3 shot 40 inch barreled shotgun with a restrictive choke (and bird shot) to protect my family. Frankly, for me – unacceptable!

After listening to each of you and then reading the laws and stats for myself, I can only come to the conclusion that neither of you are up on your own laws, let alone how well gun restriction works in the UK.

And BTW Bob, the idea of disarming people because owning guns did not stop Timothy McVeigh – or 9/11 or the Los Angeles riots of 1992 is absurd. It follows not one single line of logic. How in God’s name do you make the mental leap from 9/11 to gun control Geez, you can’t just make shit up…

Please read for yourself: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It came from here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/will-banning-guns-stop-homicides-stats-from-england-and-australia-show/, which has some interesting stats.

Here are some excerpts from the above links, I’m sure you’ll find the useless and uniforming:

We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia’s guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom’s. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a “good reason,” Australia required a “genuine reason.” Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn’t.

Yeah, what Dustin said!

Quote Bob B. “useless, as are civilians armed with handguns and assault rifles.”

Bob, we all know you have an opinion, but do you have facts?

I can literally post hundreds of these stories. Would you like me to?

At the end of each story is the Newspaper it was originally reported in.

After locking up, a female employee of Cakes and Confections 4U was leaving the business through a back door when she realized she was cornered by two strange men. One man struck her in the jaw while the other ripped off her necklace and earrings. When the men then attempted to sexually assault the woman, she produced a concealed .32 cal. firearm from her waistband and fired. Both men immediately dropped the stolen jewelry and ran. It was last reported that the assailants were still at large. After the incident, the woman said her firearm saved her life and that she had a strong message to all women, “If you don’t have a gun or you’re scared of guns, get familiar with them and get a gun.” (FOX Carolina 21, Landrum, SC, 8/29/12)

Pharmacist John Agyemang was working alone around 2 p.m. at Jolin’s Pharmacy when an armed man entered and demanded painkillers. Agyemang distracted the robber by telling him there was someone entering the store. When the suspect turned around, Agyemang dashed to the store’s back room where he kept his gun. According to police, multiple shots were fired and the suspect was able to get away on a mountain bike. It is unknown whether or not the suspect was wounded. There were no other reported injuries. (CBS, Winslow Township, NJ, 9/12/12)

Scott Stith was in his bedroom when he heard a loud crash coming from the first floor of his home. He grabbed his .45 cal. pistol and crept downstairs to investigate. He spotted the silhouette of a man, but did not fire because he had teenage sons in the house and was not 100 percent sure of his target. He called out only to discover the man was an intruder who had broken through the glass of the back door. Stith held the 29-year-old intruder at gunpoint until police arrived. Everyone involved was reportedly unharmed. (Sandusky Register., Milan, OH, 9/29/12)

Brianne Rodriguez heard a knock at her front door just before 9 a.m., but ignored it. A few minutes later, Rodriguez heard loud noises coming from her bedroom. When she went to investigate, she discovered a man wearing a ski mask in her home. The confrontation led to a struggle and Rodriguez was pushed to the floor and kicked in the face and ribs. The masked man then grabbed her screaming 2-year-old daughter and bolted for the door. Rodriguez quickly retrieved a shotgun she kept in her bedroom and followed. Upon seeing the gun, the man dropped the child and fled. He escaped with Rodriguez’s purse and some jewelry, but Rodriguez and her daughter sustained no serious injuries. (KSEE 24 NEWS, Fresno County, CA, 8/28/12)

When the ex-husband of a woman living at Windmill Cove Apartments was not granted access to his ex-wife’s home by employees of the apartment complex, he warned that he would kick in the door. His ex-wife and a 35-year-old male friend were inside when they heard yelling and someone violently kicking the door. When the door gave way and the man came inside, the friend fired several rounds from his handgun. The man suffered multiple gunshot wounds that proved fatal. (KSL, Sandy, UT, 9/2/12)

John Mutter was asleep in his bed around 2:15 a.m. when he was awakened by a man with a shotgun pointed at his head. Mutter, a paraplegic living alone, kept his own gun nearby for protection. He quickly grabbed his gun and fired multiple times killing the intruder. Police investigating the incident believed the man had entered the home looking for medication, money or anything of value. (The Columbus Dispatch, Johnstown, OH, 7/22/12)

Gerald Mirto, 67, heard noises coming from his backyard and went to investigate. When he noticed the screen door had been broken, Mirto spotted the culprit standing just outside. The 25-year-old suspect was not wearing any clothing and was asked to leave repeatedly. There was a struggle in which Mirto was bitten in the arm and punched in the head. Mirto was able to escape and retreat to the second floor of his home where he retrieved a handgun. He then found the intruder attempting to steal his television. The intruder reportedly instigated a second physical altercation. That is when Mirto shot the man in the chest. Police apprehended the intruder a short time later. (Milford Patch, Milford, CT, 7/23/12)

Guns and Ammo Gunsmith was targeted by three burglars shortly before 4 a.m. The store owner, Stephen Bayazes Jr., 57, and his wife were asleep in their apartment at the back of the business when they heard a loud crash accompanied by the activation of a silent alarm. Bayazes grabbed a rifle and found three men loading guns into a van that had crashed through the side wall of the store. Bayazes fired multiple times after being threatened by the men. He then retreated to his bedroom to reload. When Bayazes emerged, he witnessed two of the men drive away leaving behind their accomplice who was badly wounded; the burglar later died at the hospital. The other two burglars were found a short time later when they sought help for injuries of their own. (The Augusta Chronicle, North Augusta, SC, 8/9/12)

Two women were taking a walk in their neighborhood one morning when they encountered two loose pit bulls; a male and female. The male dog attacked one of the women, 48, biting her right elbow and leg. The aggressive dog had the victim on the ground when a neighbor heard her screams. He came outside to assist the injured woman and her friend when the dog reportedly turned on him. When the dog came at the neighbor in an aggressive manner, he shot the dog in the shoulder with his pistol. The dog ran off, but was later found and euthanized. The female pit bull was not involved in the attack and was taken to a local animal shelter. The victim of the attack had suffered a broken elbow and was taken to the hospital to be treated. Neither the woman’s friend nor the neighbor had been injured. (The Ranger, Riverton, WY, 7/6/12)

When a 23-year-old male followed a woman from the garage area of an apartment complex and assaulted her, the woman went to an apartment for help. The tenant, a friend of the woman’s, was home with his young son. The woman told him the man following her had tried to grope her and made unintelligible statements to her. When the tenant allowed her inside his unit and closed the door, the man began pounding on the door. The tenant grabbed a gun from his bedroom for protection. Before he was able to call police, the perpetrator kicked in the door of the apartment. When the intruder took several steps toward the woman and the boy, the tenant shot him. He was pronounced dead at the scene. (San Jose Mercury News, Oakland, CA, 8/9/12)

Lisa Goude called police when she noticed a man lurking outside her house at about 1:15 a.m. Just two minutes into the call, the man broke through the glass of a kitchen window and entered the home. The 28-year-old intruder refused to leave and attempted to enter Goude’s bedroom. Goude retrieved a handgun and shot the man once before instructing him to leave her home once again. Despite suffering a gunshot wound, the intruder reportedly came at Goude causing her to fire two more rounds. After suffering two gunshots to the neck and one to the abdomen, the intruder was pronounced dead at the scene. (The Gaston Gazette, Gastonia, NC, 8/10/12)

@164 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
44 out of 62 mass shootings have been committed by white men so that’s around 71%, so when I said “these sorts of massacres have by the great majority been committed by suburbanite white males” I was not lying. Plus it isn’t clear from any of your examples that the killers in question had a criminal history prior to their rampage.

#15 Dave and the rest of you yanky fuckwits, you know less then nothing about history or anything else for that matter do you even know where Britain is, could you find it on a map? I doubt it.

This is what us soft limeys went through during the blitz in London alone. So a few handguns and some WW1 rifles would have been of little or no use to us at all and stop watching Fox “News”, it not News!
http://www.bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900

Michelle, sorry Mike
“Personal residences burned, rape, 5 dead, 16 injured and 200 million Pounds in property damage”.
Who died and who was raped? A Wiki fact? Give me a source or credible link
“If not I’m glad you are/were able to sit in the global ‘grandstand’ and make jokes.”
Why not, we make bad jokes but at least we didn’t arm the Viet Cong unlike some US citizens who paid for Armalites for the IRA.
As for having arms in the US, go for it, I couldn’t give a toss. Fewer wankers in the world.
You can sell anti tank weapons, nerve gas or a MIG to the under 5′s. As long as you stay in your own country with your penis replacements
I just don’t want arms sold freely in the UK

Mike G

There are over 9,000 gun homicides a year in America. Guns breed violence and killing. We don’t want that overhere, which is why we prefer the controls on gun ownership we have. Fewer guns means fewer gun homicides.

“168. Cylux
@164 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
44 out of 62 mass shootings have been committed by white men so that’s around 71%, so when I said “these sorts of massacres have by the great majority been committed by suburbanite white males” I was not lying. Plus it isn’t clear from any of your examples that the killers in question had a criminal history prior to their rampage.”

Yea, find a credible website, then come talk to me. I stayed away from any website you could claim was “right-wing propaganda” with the exception of the website http://www.breitbart.com/ as it had video from an irrefutable source (C-Span, for those of you who may not know is a channel that broadcast what goes on in the capitol). Also your site shows HANDGUNS, not assault rifles are used, which also counters your assault rifle claims. I will not do your homework for you. I’m also waiting to hear what you think that video claims to say, stop skirting my questions.

“169. Slasha666
stop watching Fox “News”, it not News!”

Just out of curiosity, why do you say Fox News is not news? Because you disagree with their point of view? They report on the same stories as everyone else.

173. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G)

P.Diddy is it? It’s a simple google search, I literally spelled it out, but if you need an actual link, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

If you need me to read it out loud let me know…

As far a arming the IRA; what the fuck is England doing in Ireland? Empire building? Helping out? Stay in your own yard… You can bet your ass you won’t try that crap in the US. If I’m not mistaken, we kicked your butts out once, and we didn’t even have a ‘real’ military. Hey, are you guys still wearing read coats, standing in a straight line and marching into direct fire? And we’re the fuckwits… u funny p.diddy.

174. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G)

And what about the argument most often made by the Left quoting the success of oppressive gun laws in countries like Australia and England? A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm shows that argument to be hollow: “After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled.”

175. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G)

Motor vehicle deaths were nearly triple that of gun-related deaths — 34,485 vs. 11,493.

Death from accidental falls totaled 24,792, almost double the firearms homicide total.

Hey Brits, do you still use cars and stepladders, or are those banned as well?

176. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G)

Example of gun control in England: “Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.”

Eight hours? And we’re the fuckwits?

When you disarm law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns. You should be the poster child for this comment!

“171. Bob B
There are over 9,000 gun homicides a year in America. Guns breed violence and killing. We don’t want that overhere, which is why we prefer the controls on gun ownership we have. Fewer guns means fewer gun homicides.”

Ah, but how many of those are gang/drug related? Coming from a anti-gun city, I give you this (and you’ll love the source), Chicago’s 500th homicide:

“Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and other officials blame the death toll on a splintering of the city’s traditional gangs as well as a large number of illegal guns available in the city.”

“The city’s homicides were 80% gang-related, and 80% of the victims were black, although only 33% of the city’s population is black.”
(both from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20863160

Now on to the FBI website, on homicide data for 2011 for offenders, I peeked at the victims and it shows the same TREND. I am sure you can read, so I wont give a synopsis of what the FBI says, NOT THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL, like someone tried to pass along. This is the whole US, not just a city.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

178. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G)

Violence in America is the lowest it’s been in 40 years. The chart below, from NYU Assistant Professor of Politics and Public Policy Patrick Egan, shows that the murder rate per 100,000 population has been cut in half since the 1970s.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-gun-control-debate-part-1-the-facts/violence-in-america-1960-2010-2/

The desperation, so easy to mouth off to another country, will be another story when the time comes to hand there guns in.

174

The UK did, indeed, ban hand-guns, but not all hand-guns were disposed of by the then existing owners, therefore, those found to be still in possession of a hand gun are committing a crime It’s surprising that the new crime of possessing a hand-gun has only doubled the figure of hand-gun crime, I would have expected it to be far more.

175

This particular argument has already been answered upthread but I can’t see any logic to the proposal of adding more deaths to the existing number because you have not been able to avoid the number of existing deaths.

@172 Your video reply to me used a quote from me that pointed out that those arguing for greater gun control are not doing so from a position of jealousy. -“Plus you do realise those arguing for greater gun control don’t actually wish to physically possess your firearms because they themselves don’t have any, don’t you?”

You then claimed ‘this is wrong’ and provided the link and transcript. I fail to see how the linked video counters that point, to me its completely unrelated, absolutely everyone described by her experiences had weapons including herself, the idea that her subsequent desire to restrict the proliferation of firearms is motivated by jealousy is simply bizarre. I suspect you were responding to an argument I didn’t make, which doesn’t help.

Also your site shows HANDGUNS, not assault rifles are used, which also counters your assault rifle claims. I will not do your homework for you. I’m also waiting to hear what you think that video claims to say, stop skirting my questions.

The only assault rifle claim I’ve made in this thread is that you can’t purchase one in the UK, you can check the whole thread if you like, so I’m afraid I can’t let you get away with that little bit of goal post shifting. The point stands.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say Fox News is not news? Because you disagree with their point of view? They report on the same stories as everyone else.

Actually they don’t, Fox news is known to report on stories that no one else covers, largely due to them making them up. Which is presumably why a not insignificant proportion of the population believed Obama stole the last election with the help of Acorn, despite Acorn not having existed for the past 4 years.

@173. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G): “As far a arming the IRA; what the fuck is England doing in Ireland? Empire building? Helping out?”

US citizens raised funds for the IRA in the 1970s through to the 1990s. During that period, and still today, the majority of citizens in Northern Ireland wished to be part of the UK. A significant minority wished otherwise. The democratic settlement which exists attempts to reconcile majority and minority desires.

“Stay in your own yard… You can bet your ass you won’t try that crap in the US. If I’m not mistaken, we kicked your butts out once, and we didn’t even have a ‘real’ military.”

I’m not particularly interested in my dad is bigger than your dad arguments. However I must remind you of the burning of Washington in 1814 when Britain occupied your capital city.

@176 That incident occurred 9 years prior to the current UK firearms ban. The usage of two incidents prior to the current level of gun control, including the incident that spurred the change, to prove that gun control doesn’t work is disingenuousness at it worst.

And WTF is the US arming a fascist, racist, apartheid, landgrabbing, ethnic cleansing, murdering, child imprisoning, Zionist state, the so called only democracy in the Middle East, I’m talking about the State of Israel, the biggest obstacle to world peace

As for Northern Ireland or Ireland, that shit has been going on since the Normans invaded us in 1066 and then Ireland, maybe you like to read up about certain history.

As we’re at history you guy’s in the states wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for us, after all most who fought in the war of independence, where in fact, disgruntled Brits, so that makes you a bunch of soft British, haha!

The quote “England and America are two countries separated by a common language” is attributed to George Bernard Shaw. Whether he said it or not is unimportant because it is such a delightful truism.

On the topic of guns we speak similar words, but in the UK we associate guns with two sorts of people:
A. sporting shooters: rifle ranges, game shooting et al. Gun owners who use a weapon for pest control fall under A.
B. nutters who wish to get a gun in spite of legal restrictions.

There is no in-between in the UK.

In the UK, only nutters regard a gun as a self defence tool.

@114. Richard W: an excellent contribution.

186. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G)

Ding, Ding, Ding – I think charliman hit the nail on the head!
“There is no in-between in the UK.
In the UK, only nutters regard a gun as a self defence tool.”

The classification of an entire group of people based on emotion is fear. You fear guns in the hands of law abiding citizens for personal protection!

I “shutter to think” of what you might call the Jewish or Blacks. Between you and Slash666 (nice), one might get the impression that you’re all just bigots…

As far as Washington in 1814 – What? I’m sorry I wasn’t paying attention… Did Britain actually win a battle?

@185. Michelle / Yankee Fuckwit (aka Mike G): “The classification of an entire group of people based on emotion is fear. You fear guns in the hands of law abiding citizens for personal protection!”

British citizens do not carry weapons. We fear anyone who carries a gun. We know that that the men carrying a gun at at an airport do not have a fucking clue. They scare the shits out of everyone.

No guns.

This debate takes me back about a decade ago when I used to frequent American online forums.

No matter the topic under discussion, you could be pretty certain about making a sure bet that some gunnut would intervene to acclaim the second amendment and say unrestrained violence or unlimited government tyranny or both would ensue if controls over gun ownership were imposed.

I strongly suspect that this was a way for gunnuts to earn a few bucks during the recession of the early 1990s. After all, there is a big American industry out there making and selling guns and running gun clubs and shooting facilities. Never mind about the thousands killed every year through gun homicides.

Guns murder people the same way SPOONS make people FAT..

Get a life

As I was saying, there are these American gunnuts who are totally – and I do mean totally – obsessional about guns and the right to bear arms in the second amendment in 1791 – when the only small arms going were single shot pistols and barrel-loaded muskets.

This obsessional mindset is completely oblivious to the 9,000 something gun homicides a year in America, including the recent fashion there for massacring school kids. The recent twist is using assault rifles for the shooting, presumably because the killing is the more certain.

The curious aspect is that these gunnuts apparently feel impelled to try to pass their affliction on to folk in other countries, perhaps because the gunnuts think that will make their gun fixation look less weird and psychopathic. So far, all the evidence is that folk in most other countries are utterly unconvinced that having guns within easy reach makes for social harmony and tranquility.

Countries, like Japan, which come down really heavily on keeping guns out of circulation – even by the gangsters there – have very low rates of gun homicides. But the American gunnuts are so dumb that they can’t draw the obvious conclusions from the evidence so the gun homicides continue at the horrific rate of 9,000+ a year. IMO diagnosing gunnuts as ‘social inadequates’ doesn’t really cover the situation.

191. Richard Carey

@ 189 Bob B,

you’re the obsessional one, still banging away with your lame arguments, getting steadily more abusive.

For some reason you can’t compute that other people see things different to you, and, not having been disarmed, they do not desire to be stripped of their legally-recognised rights. They like being free.

IMO all contributors here, especially the cerebrally challenged gunnuts, need to read this admirable piece of sanity in an editorial in the NYT by Prof Louis Seidman on:

Let’s give up on the Constitution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

At last, someone in America has realised that the US Constitution, which is treated as a sacred text, is a millstone in coming to terms with modernity. The analysis in this editorial is compelling and, of course, it is hugely relevant to the unsettled issues about the second amendment and gun control even though those issues don’t explicitly feature.

Michelle darling
“It’s a simple google search, I literally spelled it out, but if you need an actual link, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
If you need me to read it out loud let me know…
Wiki is not a credible source. People lie

As far a arming the IRA; what the fuck is England doing in Ireland? Empire building?
Northern Ireland is a separate country and is part of the UK.I wish they would teach history and geography in US schools.

“Helping out? Stay in your own yard… You can bet your ass you won’t try that crap in the US. If I’m not mistaken, we kicked your butts out once, and we didn’t even have a ‘real’ military.”
No you were cowardly terrorists who at the time were looked upon as the Al Q of their time.
” Hey, are you guys still wearing read coats, standing in a straight line and marching into direct fire? And we’re the fuckwits… u funny p.diddy.”
Actually it was the cheese eating surrender monkeys who really beat us in the revolutionary war. You would have lost without French military support and many of our soldiers were German mercenaries. In the later 1812 war they were experienced British soldiers and didn’t those redcoats burn down the white house. You Yanks ran away from your own capital.
Anyway that happened 200 years ago and most modern US citizens are very different from the original US citizens (who were mainly Brits who spoke with UK accents)

“You’re the obsessional one, still banging away with your lame arguments, getting steadily more abusive.”
Richard your comments sound pretty obsessional and abusive (the teeth comment). Bob has been quite reserved in his abuse.

As for the figures about Crime and the US. I hope those figures are going down perhaps it is because of the influence of the big state. Obama must be doing something right. Although for right wing tea party bigots like Mike and Dustin it must be hard pill to swallow.

194. Robin Levett

Can the American(s?) in this thread arguing against gun-control explain why the states in the USA with the least liberal gun-control legislation have the lowest gun-murder rates; and those with the laxest have the highest gun-murder rates?

This is what happens with “freedom” from gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THqDidIr4Xs

As Edmund Burke wrote: Liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed. (1777)

196. Robin Levett

@Dustin #177:

Now on to the FBI website, on homicide data for 2011 for offenders, I peeked at the victims and it shows the same TREND. I am sure you can read, so I wont give a synopsis of what the FBI says, NOT THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL, like someone tried to pass along. This is the whole US, not just a city.

The FBI data are incomplete for two reasons; firstly, they only include figures for reported crime (whereas the CDC figures include all homicides – the information comes from the death certificates); secondly, they don’t include firearms homicide data from Alabama or Florida – 1,285 total murders reported – and include limited data from Illinois.

197. Robin Levett

…and Michelle etc (#178); at what point did The Blaze become a credible source for anything?

@29 Dustin

“Our Forefathers weren’t stupid when they amended the constitution; they knew exactly what they were saying when they penned the second amendment.”

Believe me buddy, we once had a law as dumb as your second amendment, and it was introduced for the same worthwhile purpose – to be ready to defend against invasion from abroad.

In 1541 Henry VIII made a law requiring “All Men under the Age of sixty Years..shall have Bows and Arrows for shooting. Men-Children between Seven Years and Seventeen shall have a Bow and 2 Shafts. Men about Seventeen “Years of Age shall keep a Bow and 4 Arrows – Penalty 6s.8d.” Section 8 of the Act is of particular interest to you “Aliens shall “not convey Bows or Arrows beyond the Sea.” [Stats. 3 H.8.c.3. & 6 H.8.c.2]

The benefit of requiring all men to be good with longbows became increasingly irrelevent, so we got rid of the law in 1863 [26 & 27 Vict.c.125] – around the time you were shooting each other (600,000 of you by some accounts) because some of you felt it was ok to own another human being and force them to do your bidding, or to sell them to others for profit.

So you are right that your forefathers weren’t stupid in amending the constitution. The thing is, you are being very stupid by not ameniding it now. The threat of invasion into the US is, I would suggest very small. And I don’t expect a pink AR-15 will make a lot of difference. If you want more advice on how to deal with this threat, I would suggest you visit this site [ http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ ] , or go and see a shrink.

…now who was it who said “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself?…”

199. Richard Carey

@ davidh,

More ignorant twaddle from a know-nothing anti-American.

“it was introduced for the same worthwhile purpose – to be ready to defend against invasion from abroad.”

That is not the same purpose. Enemies can be foreign or domestic.

“you were shooting each other (600,000 of you by some accounts) because some of you felt it was ok to own another human being”

That was not the cause of the war. The right of the states to secede from the Union was the issue in dispute.

“we got rid of the law in 1863″

The law you refer to is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment does not command Americans to own weapons, it forbids Congress from infringing the pre-existing right.

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty, was in place in England until the socialist government after WWII. There was no gun control until 1920 (apart from a very minimal amount). The socialist government undermined the ownership of a firearm for the purposes of self-defence, although ownership was (and is) allowed for other reasons.

200. Dissident

I find it sad that anybody would think that freedom is maintained through the barrel of a gun. Whether it is freedom from crime or freedom from tyrants. The argument is a fraud! Americans don’t have any real freedom with guns, but Hollywood films and FOX give that delusion willingly, for profit. It’s like giving a baby a dummy (pacifier for Americans) and charging for it!

Having a gun does not equate to been free, it equates to murder, and death by misadventure. I have seen a variety of posts equating gun ownership with freedom, from people whose rights have been at best curtailed by the patriot act!

This is no doubt ad hominem, but I took a gun out of someone’s hand. No negotiation, no violence, otherwise I would have witnessed a suicide/manslaughter event in front of me – I hate & despise that kind of weapon, and that night proved how stupid you have to be to insist that the majority of people have any right to weaponry – my default is to never trust anyone with a gun. I despise governments that have them too FYI in other words, all of them!

201. Richard Carey

@ 200 ,

“I find it sad that anybody would think that freedom is maintained through the barrel of a gun”

Maybe it is sad, but such is life.

“Having a gun does not equate to been free, it equates to murder”

Not at all. There are millions of guns in America, and a tiny number of them are used to murder. Virtually everyone has potentially-lethal weapons, in their kitchen draw, medicine cabinet or their toolshed, and like with gun-owners, manages to get through life without murdering anyone.

“Whether it is freedom from crime or freedom from tyrants.”

I don’t think anyone believes gun ownership grants these things. They merely bestow the ability to defend oneself better than otherwise against crime and tyranny, which is why tyrants always disarm the people.

“I have seen a variety of posts equating gun ownership with freedom, from people whose rights have been at best curtailed by the patriot act!”

That’s right. The Bill of Rights has been grossly violated by the Patriot Act and now the NDAA, amongst other unconstitutional laws, but that is not an argument to further surrender rights, but to push back against those unconstitutional laws. Gun ownership equates to having the right to self-defence and preventing the state from monopolising violence. The right to own weapons is a key distinction between a free man and a slave.

“I hate & despise that kind of weapon, and that night proved how stupid you have to be to insist that the majority of people have any right to weaponry”

You had, no doubt, a traumatic experience. That doesn’t mean that everyone else has to surrender their right to self-defence. No one is obliged to be a victim of someone else’s aggression.

“my default is to never trust anyone with a gun. I despise governments that have them too”

All governments have weapons. This being the case, if you judge them the same, then there should be no difference between individual citizens with guns and individuals with uniforms and badges from the government with guns. I agree that they should be judged the same. We should all be held to the same law.

“181. Cylux
@172 Your video reply to me used a quote from me that pointed out that those arguing for greater gun control are not doing so from a position of jealousy.”

You are correct, not from jealousy. But that does not mean that those in the anti-gun lobby pushing for strict, even banishment, of firearms do not themselves have them or have a security detail. Again, like I asked earlier, WHY? They, like has been said here, that there is no need to arm oneself from anything (foreign and domestic threats), as I am generalizing.

“181. Cylux

“172. Dustin:
Also your site shows HANDGUNS, not assault rifles are used, which also counters your assault rifle claims. I will not do your homework for you. I’m also waiting to hear what you think that video claims to say, stop skirting my questions.”

The only assault rifle claim I’ve made in this thread is that you can’t purchase one in the UK, you can check the whole thread if you like, so I’m afraid I can’t let you get away with that little bit of goal post shifting. The point stands.”

You are right, YOU specifically did not, but like has been done here with the pro-gun, I generalized all the anti-gun people. Mistake? Eh, yea I should have worded it better and not generalized as much. I try to answer multiple posts, unlike is done to me (please refer to post #162 last paragraph, before the video at the end).

“181. Cylux:

#172. Dustin:
Just out of curiosity, why do you say Fox News is not news? Because you disagree with their point of view? They report on the same stories as everyone else.”

Actually they don’t, Fox news is known to report on stories that no one else covers, largely due to them making them up. Which is presumably why a not insignificant proportion of the population believed Obama stole the last election with the help of Acorn, despite Acorn not having existed for the past 4 years.”

Please provide an example, because anyone can say something. In just a simple search I pulled up 3 different stories on the acorn topic you so suggest. Though,I will admit I have yet to read them since I’m typing this.

“184. Slasha666
And WTF is the US arming a fascist, racist, apartheid, landgrabbing, ethnic cleansing, murdering, child imprisoning, Zionist state, the so called only democracy in the Middle East, I’m talking about the State of Israel, the biggest obstacle to world peace”

Off-topic, why do you think this? Also still would like YOUR (so there is no confusion, you refers to slasha666) response to my fox question.

“185. Charlieman
On the topic of guns we speak similar words, but in the UK we associate guns with two sorts of people:
A. sporting shooters: rifle ranges, game shooting et al. Gun owners who use a weapon for pest control fall under A.
B. nutters who wish to get a gun in spite of legal restrictions. There is no in-between in the UK. In the UK, only nutters regard a gun as a self defence tool.”

This bill seeks to ban semi-automatic PISTOLS which are used in shooting competitions, which your country participates in (http://www.ipsc.org/results/regionstatus.php then under “overall rank” scroll to #17). Do I need to mention the other shooting sports this bill affects in shotgun and rifle competitions? So those people (I personally know 2) who shoot in those competitions are “gun nutters” by your standard, because they advocate to stop this bill trying to pass? Glad your standards of classification are not used here in the United States. Also it is known several of these competitions conceal carry.

“188. Bob B
After all, there is a big American industry out there making and selling guns and running gun clubs and shooting facilities. Never mind about the thousands killed every year through gun homicides.”

You’re right, there is a big industry out there pertaining to the arms trade. From firearm manufacturers, accessory manufacturers, and shooting facilities. But have you ever been to one? Do you know what they teach? I am going to assume no. I have. The local range I shoot at has signs talking about gun safety. A good friend (one of the competition shooters) teaches a class, did you know that the first thing is safety and procedure for safe handling? Let’s talk about the tactical facilities. Did you know a lot (I can not speak for all, but all that I know of fall under what I am about to say) are restricted to Law Enforcement (LE), military, and those who work in the personal security detail (PSD) field? Those civilians that do attend are carefully selected. Don’t confuse an advance shooting techniques class with a tactical class.

“190. Bob B
As I was saying, there are these American gunnuts who are totally – and I do mean totally – obsessional about guns and the right to bear arms in the second amendment in 1791 – when the only small arms going were single shot pistols and barrel-loaded muskets.”

If you think that weapons technology will not advance, you are a moron. This has been evident throughout history, I feel the need to mention going from a bow to crossbow. From crossbow to firearm. Sword and the shield, as weapons got more deadly, we sought to protect ourselves with armor. Then we look for ways to make our weapons defeat your armor while our armor defeats your weapons (from projectiles to a sword). Can I predict what weapons will look like in the future? No, but the push from EVERYONE (your military and mine for example) is lighter, more lethal, longer range, to even exclude humans in direct contact entirely (rockets). As far as the 9,000 homicides, I have repeatedly asked, how many are from gang and drug cartels fighting for control of an area? I provided a source evidence (see above), your turn.

“193. P.Diddy:

“173. Michelle darling
“It’s a simple google search, I literally spelled it out, but if you need an actual link, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots”
If you need me to read it out loud let me know…”

Wiki is not a credible source. People lie ”

Yet, the anti-gun crowd used wiki (see post #117, post #120)

“193. P.Diddy
As for the figures about Crime and the US. I hope those figures are going down perhaps it is because of the influence of the big state. Obama must be doing something right. Although for right wing tea party bigots like Mike and Dustin it must be hard pill to swallow.”

You should be a comedian, that is just the most funny, unsupported, and stupid comment. First, show me that the gun violence is directly related to Obama, as the only legislation brought up was about concealed carry (until recently). Oh, why should an administration who LOST 2,000 weapons TO THE VERY PEOPLE WE SHOULD KEEP THEM FROM, CRIMINALS! (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57559809-10391739/fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-mexican-crime-scene/) Second, you do not know my party affiliation, so let me inform you. I am a MODERATE REPUBLICAN, not a “right-wing bigot” like you claim. Third, his cash-for-clunkers program was the most stupid, costly, and insufficient program. Do you know how many perfectly fine vehicles got traded in for “the latest & greatest” vehicle? I had a 1999 vehicle that fell under this I kept because it was and still is a fine vehicle. In fact it wasn’t until a year and a half ago (September 2011) that I bought the newest vehicle I’ve ever owned, a 2004 pickup that had 163,316 miles. My truck runs and drives perfect, though my car needs a new valve gasket and leaks a little oil it still runs fine (probably should get a tune-up soon though). It’s hard to swallow a pill that doesn’t exist. But this is off topic so enough of it.

“194. Robin Levett
Can the American(s?) in this thread arguing against gun-control explain why the states in the USA with the least liberal gun-control legislation have the lowest gun-murder rates; and those with the laxest have the highest gun-murder rates?”

I am going to assume you are asking me (as one of the Americans) who are arguing against gun control why a state with least restrictive laws have higher gun murder rates when a state with strict gun laws do not? Correct? If so let us continue.

Which states are you referring to with higher gun crimes and less restrictive gun laws? California? New York? Chicago (Illinois)? Because those states are not our states with the least restrictive gun laws, Montana, Texas, and some can argue Alaska are the top states with the least restrictive. But again, which states are you referring to? Answer this and I’ll finish out my answer, as I want to eliminate any confusion.

“196. Robin Levett”

“Dustin #177:
Now on to the FBI website, on homicide data for 2011 for offenders, I peeked at the victims and it shows the same TREND. I am sure you can read, so I wont give a synopsis of what the FBI says, NOT THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL, like someone tried to pass along. This is the whole US, not just a city.”

The FBI data are incomplete for two reasons; firstly, they only include figures for reported crime (whereas the CDC figures include all homicides – the information comes from the death certificates); secondly, they don’t include firearms homicide data from Alabama or Florida – 1,285 total murders reported – and include limited data from Illinois.”

Show me this CDC data breaking it down, I looked, there is not enough specific data to support your claim or mine. The FBI has it broke down into male/female and race as well as age for example. As to the whole “(whereas the CDC figures include all homicides – the information comes from the death certificates).” Does it say vehicular or gun related homicide? I could not find this data (maybe I missed it, but since I asked another person to look also and they didn’t find it…well, you see the point right?). Don’t include Florida and Alabama data? Check here and you’ll see both states (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5). As far as limited data from Illinois, I can not speculate on that as I have not looked at state specific data enough.

“198. davidh:
“29 Dustin:
“Our Forefathers weren’t stupid when they amended the constitution; they knew exactly what they were saying when they penned the second amendment.”

Believe me buddy, we once had a law as dumb as your second amendment, and it was introduced for the same worthwhile purpose – to be ready to defend against invasion from abroad.”

Err, I never said that. I did your homework, here is the post you refer to, post #29 by RM George:

“29. RM George
Our Forefathers weren’t stupid when they amended the constitution; they knew exactly what they were saying when they penned the second amendment. The guns I own, like so many other Americans, are meant for protection, but not from the one-off home intruder, but rather the protection of our country as a whole along with the liberties that made her great.”

“200. Dissident
Having a gun does not equate to been free, it equates to murder, and death by misadventure. I have seen a variety of posts equating gun ownership with freedom, from people whose rights have been at best curtailed by the patriot act!

This is no doubt ad hominem, but I took a gun out of someone’s hand. No negotiation, no violence, otherwise I would have witnessed a suicide/manslaughter event in front of me – I hate & despise that kind of weapon, and that night proved how stupid you have to be to insist that the majority of people have any right to weaponry – my default is to never trust anyone with a gun. I despise governments that have them too FYI in other words, all of them!”

A gun gives us SECURITY. We have the FREEDOM to posses that which can be used to PROTECT us. Break into my house and threaten my family, I won’t call an ambulance because I know I will have stopped the threat to my families and my safety. “my default is to never trust anyone with a gun. I despise governments that have them too FYI in other words, all of them!” But what is funny is you still trust those with a gun, in YOUR government (military) to protect you. Irony.

Love how my LONG reply didn’t post. Give me time to redo it (I haven’t left).

@199 Richard Carey

I hate to remain ignorant and Anti american, but who was it who said “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself?” Ok the quote was in relation to a bad economy, but it strikes me that those who insist on a personal arms race (rather than a “well regulated militia”) are in fact frightened.

Perhaps you should query, like Justice Thomas, whether the right to bear arms ‘has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.’

205. Richard Carey

@ davidh,

‘who was it who said “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself?”’

I presume you are referring to FDR, who said something similar to this.

“those who insist on a personal arms race”

Who insists on this? Can you quote anyone who says this, or has said this? I doubt it.

I suppose your point is that people who believe in their right to bear arms are dominated by fear. I don’t think this is true. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the legal position. You may think the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. What I hope you recognise is the difference between doing this in a lawful manner (i.e. amending the Constitution) and passing a law in clear violation of the Constitution and attempting to enforce such a law. This is what Dianne Feinstein is seeking to do, and people should indeed be fearful of where it might lead.

As for the ‘palladium of liberty’ I concur with St George Tucker, who I believe coined the phrase, with reference to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the English Law:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. … The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty, was in place in England until the socialist government after WWII. There was no gun control until 1920 (apart from a very minimal amount). The socialist government undermined the ownership of a firearm for the purposes of self-defence, although ownership was (and is) allowed for other reasons.
There was no socialist government in 1920 it was a liberal/ conservative coalition. In the “Coupon election” of December 1918 he led a coalition of Conservatives and his own faction of Liberals to a smashing landslide victory. Coalition candidates received a “coupon” (an endorsement letter signed by Lloyd George and Bonar Law).
The free market liberal Edward Shortt was promoted to Home Secretary and in January 1919, during the middle of a police strike. He helped to solve the strike to everyone’s satisfaction and earned the support of the police. He had to deal with rising crime, and increasing urging from the right wing press, caused by large numbers of unemployed soldiers, some with mental illness. He brought in a bill to license firearms, of which there were many which had been smuggled back as war trophies.
So no pinkos there.
As for gun control in the UK. Not much pinko influence until the 60′s.

After the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, harsh laws providing, amongst other things, for disarming the Highlands of Scotland, were enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain: the Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, and the Act of Proscription 1746.
Pinkos ?

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest “any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon … with intent to commit a felonious act”. This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.
Pinkos ?

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.
Pinko ?

Pistols Act 1903
The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms. Titled “An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms”, it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols. It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) in length and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence, were exempt from the Gun Licence Act, could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property, or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector’s rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more. The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol commercially merely had to purchase a licence on demand over the counter from a Post Office before doing so. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms. The legislators laid some emphasis on the dangers of pistols in the hands of children and drunkards and made specific provisions regarding sales to these two groups: persons under 18 could be fined 40 shillings if they bought, hired, or carried a pistol, while anyone who sold a pistol to such a person could be fined £5. Anyone who sold a pistol to someone who was “intoxicated or of unsound mind” was liable to a fine of £25 or 3 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. However, it was not an offence under the Act to give or lend a pistol to anyone belonging to these two groups.
Pinko government?

1920 Firearms Act
The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. “An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition”, its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfil their commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention. Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other and the Act applied there too. It required anyone wanting to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate, and had the power to exclude anyone of “intemperate habits” or “unsound mind”, or anyone considered “…for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms.” Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The law did not affect smooth-bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. The penalty for violating the Act was a fine of up to £50 or “imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months”, or both. The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, “as allowed by law”. The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the police. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. These originally included self-defence. As the 1920 Act did not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally, in 1933 the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill was submitted to Parliament. It increased the punishment for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime and made it an offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment for anyone to “attempt to make use” of any firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest. Possession of a real or imitation firearm was also made an offence unless the possessor could show he had it for “a lawful object”.

1937 Firearms Act

The 1937 Firearms Act incorporated various modifications to the 1920 Act based on the recommendations of a 1934 committee chaired by Sir Archibald Bodkin. The resulting legislation raised the minimum age for buying a firearm or airgun from 14 to 17, extended controls to shotguns and other smooth-bore weapons with barrels shorter than 20 in (510 mm) (later raised by the Firearms Act 1968 to 24 in (610 mm)), transferred certificates for machine guns to military oversight, regulated gun dealers, and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual firearms certificates. The same year, the Home Secretary, a conservative, ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that “firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger”. Fully automatic firearms were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act. Such weapons became restricted to certain special collectors, museums, prop companies, the military, Police Forces and anyone with the permission of the Home Secretary.
As for later acts. The socialist government brought in the The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Thatcher government brought in the tougher Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area’s chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, this did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, and ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.

So to say it was just pinkos who brought in gun control is complete bollocks.

207. Richard Carey

@ 205,

that’s all very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

“So to say it was just pinkos who brought in gun control is complete bollocks.”

That’s not what I said, which was: “The right to keep and bear arms **for self-defence** … was in place in England until the socialist government after WWII.”

The removal of self-defence as a valid reason for owning a firearm was indeed due to the socialist government after WWII. Please note from Hansard 17 October 1946 this response from the Home Secretary:

“I could not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for the protection of an applicant’s person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate.”

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1946/oct/17/firearm-certificates-revolvers

In Britain, no mainstream political party is running with a manifesto commitment for deregulating gun control. It isn’t a live issue.

All polling in Britain shows that we like tough restrictions on access to shotguns and rifles – handguns are banned completely. Virtually all the major affluent industrialised countries, apart from America, have tight gun controls – and the low gun homicide rates that go with gun controls. The price that Americans pay for their easy access to guns is over 9,000 gun homicides a year, including the regular massacres of school kids there.

206. Richard Carey

I note you have been using the term “socialist” in a manner which implies it is an insult. This is like those postings earlier who used the term “Anti-American” for anyone who criticise certain aspects of life in America.

Now in an attempt to find some common ground, I suggest it is Anti-American to go into a school and shoot American children. I also think it requires a socially concerned mindset to want to do something about it.

Can we agree on that?

210. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #199:

“it was introduced for the same worthwhile purpose – to be ready to defend against invasion from abroad.”

That is not the same purpose. Enemies can be foreign or domestic.

Indeed. That is why the militia referred to in the US Constitution and the amendments thereto, trained and officered by the State Governments and organised, armed disciplined and called forth by the Federal Government, was intended to be used for executing the Laws of the Union and suppressing insurrections as well as repelling foreign invaders.

That looks more like the National Guard than the Branch Davidians…

“you were shooting each other (600,000 of you by some accounts) because some of you felt it was ok to own another human being”

That was not the cause of the war. The right of the states to secede from the Union was the issue in dispute.

Since you wouldn’t ever write ignorant twaddle, perhaps you can tell me how many of the secesssion States mentioned the threat to slavery in their declarations on secession, and how many said they were seceding to establish the right to secede?

You see, ignorant anti-American that I apparently am, I understood that those of them that made such declarations of them said things like:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

or:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

or:

…We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River…

or:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Richard
“The removal of self-defence as a valid reason for owning a firearm was indeed due to the socialist government after WWII. Please note from Hansard 17 October 1946 this response from the Home Secretary:”

“I could not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for the protection of an applicant’s person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate.”

That is a view from a politician but which parliamentary act was the removal of self defence, the 1937 act not one after the war. Also that home secretary was defending the 1937 act, an act brought in by conservatives that self defence was not a reason to own a pistol. Give me the act, the socialists brought in after 1945 on gun control.

212. Richard Carey

@ 208 davidh,

“I note you have been using the term “socialist” in a manner which implies it is an insult.”

All I said was “the socialist government”, referring to the Attlee government. How is that an insult? I can’t imagine Nye Bevan taking offence at the label.

“I suggest it is Anti-American to go into a school and shoot American children. I also think it requires a socially concerned mindset to want to do something about it. Can we agree on that?”

Let’s agree that neither you nor I consider murdering children anything other than a monstrous crime. What we most likely will not agree upon is the federal government violating the Bill of Rights as part of the ‘solution’. For the record, I don’t support all the other violations of the Bill of Rights either, such as included in the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

@ Robin,

slavery was certainly one of the major bones of contention in the war, and I would say it was what doomed the South to lose, for one reason by preventing support from other countries such as Britain. However, what did Abe say?

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

213. Robin Levett

@Richard carey #199:

Sorry, missed this:

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty

Nope. Never. The rule of law is what has, since 1215, been considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty. St George Tucker, upon whom you rely for this proposition (#204), was an American writing in 1803.

Interestingly, he rather undermines your claim (#199) that:

There was no gun control until 1920 (apart from a very minimal amount). The socialist government undermined the ownership of a firearm for the purposes of self-defence, although ownership was (and is) allowed for other reasons

since he claims, in 1803, that:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . .

[Pausing briefly here - what is in this ellipsis?]

The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

My emphasis…

You may also want to consider whether Tucker did actually support your view – see:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/Colloquy/2009/13/index.html

Richard
“The removal of self-defence as a valid reason for owning a firearm was indeed due to the socialist government after WWII. Please note from Hansard 17 October 1946 this response from the Home Secretary:”

“I could not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for the protection of an applicant’s person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate.”

That is a view from a politician but which parliamentary act was the removal of self defence, the 1937 act not one after the war. Also that home secretary was defending the 1937 act, an act brought in by conservatives that self defence was not a reason to own a pistol. Give me the act, the socialists brought in after 1945 on gun control. They defended the act but many governments do that on issues ranging from capital punishment to anti terrorism.

I cannot find a gun control act between the years 1937 and 1968. Please enlighten me

215. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #212:

slavery was certainly one of the major bones of contention in the war, and I would say it was what doomed the South to lose, for one reason by preventing support from other countries such as Britain. However, what did Abe say?

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

He did indeed say that; but you did miss a bit – I’ll leave you to find it and add it on.

More relevantly, he didn’t secede and start a war; the Confederate States did. They also explained precisely why they seceded – to preserve the institution of slavery. They started the war over slavery – the right of one man to own another – and over slavery alone.

Lincoln was forced into a fight to preserve the Union. It hardly lies in the mouths of the South to make the claim that he was indifferent to slavery, when the South’s reason for starting the war when they did was the claim that his election foreshadowed abolition.

216. Richard Carey

@ Robin,

“Sorry, missed this:

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty

Nope. Never.”

Sir William Blackstone:

“In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank and property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon they are founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other.

And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in its full vigour; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”

217. Richard Carey

@ P Diddy,

there’s nothing in the 1937 which takes away the common law right, as far as I know. If that quote from the Tory Home Sec is correct, then the Labour one was following suit, and I am wrong to blame them, but your source is Wikipedia, My source is Hansard, and to my knowledge this is the first admission of the change in practice, but there was no change in law. It was the 1920 Act which introduced the system which could then be steadily tightened up, which is what happened.

@ Robin,

governments violate the rights of the people. They always have and always will. Does this mean the people have no rights, or that the rights they have are only those allowed them by the government? No, they have these rights irrespective of whether the government violates them. The slavery issue is a prime example.

218. Richard Carey

@ Robin,

“He did indeed say that; but you did miss a bit – I’ll leave you to find it and add it on.”

I took the quote as I found it. I didn’t edit it.

“More relevantly, he didn’t secede and start a war; the Confederate States did.”

The Southern states seceded, but the war was fought because Lincoln didn’t want to let them secede. The war wasn’t unavoidable. Many in the North said “let them go”.

“Lincoln was forced into a fight to preserve the Union.”

To preserve the Union, war was necessary, but why preserve the Union? Do you believe, as Lincoln did, in some kind of manifest destiny of the USA? You cannot claim that it was unquestionably necessary to have such a bloodbath, merely to keep the states together. Look at Yugoslavia. Do you think that should still be together?

“They started the war over slavery – the right of one man to own another – and over slavery alone.”

I agreed above that it was one of the key bones of contention, but they didn’t start the war over slavery, they seceded over slavery would be fair to say, but the war started because Lincoln would not accept secession, but rather believed that the mystical Union must be preserved.

207

This is very interesting, could you advise me where this socialist government existed after WW2.

there’s nothing in the 1937 which takes away the common law right, as far as I know. If that quote from the Tory Home Sec is correct, then the Labour one was following suit, and I am wrong to blame them, but your source is Wikipedia, My source is Hansard, and to my knowledge this is the first admission of the change in practice, but there was no change in law. It was the 1920 Act which introduced the system which could then be steadily tightened up, which is what happened.

This is nonsense, there was a 1937 act brought in by the conservatives. My source is not Wiki it is the 1937 act. Read any textbook on gun control and the law. It was a parliamentary act. As for your last sentence the two acts that controlled guns between 1920 and 1968 were brought in by a conservative/ liberal coalition and a conservative government, in the early 1920′s and 1937. All the home secretary did in 1947 was to comment on the law passed in 1937.

221. Richard Carey

@ Pdiddy,

“This is nonsense, there was a 1937 act brought in by the conservatives.”

I know this, but it did not remove the right to keep a firearm for self-defence, as far as I know.

“Read any textbook on gun control and the law.”

I have “Firearms Control” by Colin Greenwood in my lap, and my comments are based on that. According to him, it was the post-war Labour government which directed that self-defence was no longer a valid reason to own a firearm, but that this was not written into the law, but implemented by tightening up how the police treated licence applications.

have “Firearms Control” by Colin Greenwood in my lap, and my comments are based on that. According to him, it was the post-war Labour government which directed that self-defence was no longer a valid reason to own a firearm, but that this was not written into the law, but implemented by tightening up how the police treated licence applications.
In which act of parliament. Which statute ?
In the 1937 act it was stated that self defence was not a reason for carrying a firearm. Labour maybe implemented the act but isn’t wasn’t them who brought it in.
Also it would be local police authorities that dealt with license applications and they would be following the instructions of the 1937 act.
Like most right wing authors, aka David Irving he is not telling the complete truth.
Apart from a barking right wing author show me a statement from a Labour party government oficial that instructs the police do anything that wasn’t in the 1937 act.

Colin Underwood
Ex super from the West Yorkshire Police. Haven’t they been in the news recently?
Conservative party member and enthusiastic gun lover.
Now that isn’t a tainted source.

224. Richard Carey

@ 222 P diddy,

“In the 1937 act it was stated that self defence was not a reason for carrying a firearm. Labour maybe implemented the act but isn’t wasn’t them who brought it in.”

I keep saying it doesn’t say that, as far as I can see. I’m trying to be honest, you’re just bluffing I reckon.

Here’s the act – find the quote which supports your contention:

http://www.dvc.org.uk/dunblane/fa1937.pdf

“2.- (1) An application for the grant of a certificate under this section shall be made in the prescribed form to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides and shall state such particulars as may be required by the said form.

(2) The certificate shall be granted by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for purchasing, acquiring, or having in his possession the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made, and can be permitted to have in his possession that firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace:

Provided that a certificate shall not be granted to a person whom the chief officer of police has reason to believe to be prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which this Part of this Act applies, or to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to be for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm.”

All it says is the person must have ‘good reason’. Therefore, by changing what is considered ‘good reason’ the rules can be tightened up, like I said.

“Like most right wing authors, aka David Irving he is not telling the complete truth.”

That is pathetic.

“Apart from a barking right wing author show me a statement from a Labour party government oficial that instructs the police do anything that wasn’t in the 1937 act.”

I pointed you to Hansard and showed you the evidence. He does not mention the 1937 Act. If it was clearly in that Act he would surely have said so. The reason he has to answer the question is because it was not clearly in the law.

All that amounts to is a smoke screen to obscure the otherwise obvious fact that easy availability of guns in America brings 9,000+ gun homicides a year, including regular massacres of school kids. Other affluent, industrialised countries with strict gun control don’t have anything like that rate of gun homicides.

226. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #218:

I took the quote as I found it. I didn’t edit it.

I’m not saying you did; but it speaks volumes for the reliability of your source that, in common with so many such sources, it didn’t think it necessary to add the few remaining lines of the letter to Horace Greeley. The letter in full reads:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

As for:

“More relevantly, he didn’t secede and start a war; the Confederate States did.”

The Southern states seceded, but the war was fought because Lincoln didn’t want to let them secede. The war wasn’t unavoidable. Many in the North said “let them go”.

The war was fought because the slaveholding states seceded over slavery; because having had their way over slavery for decades, they saw the tide turning against them and wanted to pick their ball up and go home.

Lincoln had no choice but to oppose that secession; as a matter of principle, because he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (which, be it noted, contains a procedure for succession, but no procedure for secession); as a matter of expediency, because allowing a rabid weasel like the South to remain independent would be inviting a subsequent war, a war that the Union might not win. He would have been on the one hand criminally negligent, and on the other an oathbreaker, to allow the secessionists to depart.

227. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #216:

I don’t know why you think the quote from Blackstone in some way contradicts my position. Read it carefully.

228. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #224:

Just one snippet from this post:

All it says is the person must have ‘good reason’. Therefore, by changing what is considered ‘good reason’ the rules can be tightened up, like I said.

No. Just, no. The Home Secretary had no function under the 1937 Act to define “good reason”. The idea that he could do so by an answer in Parliament, at a time when the Courts were forbidden from consulting Hansard to construe legislation, goes beyond absurd.

This is quite interesting: http://youtu.be/8QjZY3WiO9s

230. Richard Carey

@ Robin,

I’ve worked out your favourite tactic: when confronted with evidence, you say either; ‘read it carefully’, as if I’ve misunderstood, or ‘you missed a bit’, when the bit doesn’t change anything, or you send me off to a source that doesn’t back up what you’re saying. The Blackstone quote ends with: “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” It can’t get much clearer than that. I paraphrased this: “The right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty”. You said “Nope. Never.” Any objective person can see that my interpretation of the full passage is correct and honest. As I said much earlier, and should have heeded myself, there’s little point arguing about these matters. There is no shared language, let alone shared values.

Robin: “The war was fought because the slaveholding states seceded over slavery; because having had their way over slavery for decades, they saw the tide turning against them and wanted to pick their ball up and go home.”

There is much evidence that many younger guys in the Confederate states were gung ho for a civil war without thinking through the potential consequencies and likely eventual conclusion with the little industrial capacity of the south compared with that of the north.

General Lee’s early victories up to the battle of Gettysburg in July 1863 encouraged this mindless euphoria in the southern stares about the outcome of the civil war. Lee was a brilliant tactician but Gettysburg was a badly chosen battleground, which Lee could have easily avoided although he really believed Confederate troops from the southern states, especially the troops from Virginia, to be “invincible”. He had calculated that a victory at Gettysburg would have opened the way to a march on Washington bringing an ultimate Conferate victory.

Looking among current US news clippings and YouTube video clips, it is astonishing to see how the Confederacy is still regularly celebrated in America. Btw notice the active engagement of Irish supporters of the Confederacy and slavery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKiTJcQK5U

Recall that slavery was abolished throughout the British empire in 1838. In England, Lord Mansfield in a judgement of the Somerset case on 1772 declared slavery to be unlawful.

I always find this link to be interesting when discussing the American Civil war – http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
From the summary –

As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was “not about slavery” until the cows come home, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.

In Imperial Russia, serfdom was abolished in 1861.

The prevailing mindset in the Confederacy was firmly locked into their past. The Confederates were incapable of thinking past their grand landed estates and the cotton based economy towards industrialistion and all the implications of industrialisation, where slavery was completely impracticable.

King Cotton was a slogan used by southerners (1860–61) to support secession from the United States by arguing cotton exports would make an independent Confederacy economically prosperous, and—more important—would force Great Britain and France to support the Confederacy in the Civil War because their industrial economy depended on textiles derived from cotton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton

That turned out to be another delusion.

Hey anyone know where that Guy Dustin is stationed? I’d like to have a word with his C.O about his posts. Calls himself a paratrooper and makes an utter baboon of himself. I’ve taken screenshots and all

I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a “need” for rights.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/victor7.1.1.html

The trouble is that an awful lot of Americans obviously didn’t and don’t believe that slaves were born with inalienable rights – hence the continuing celebrations of the Confederacy. And the tolerance of 9,000+ gun homicides a year by Americans, including the regular massacres of school kids, show that they don’t care about the rights of any who aren’t packing, especially packing assault guns for the better killing of fellow Americans.

The frequency of American interventions in the affairs of other states – such as Japan in 1853, Cuba 1898, the Philippines 1899-1902 etc etc – exhibit a continuing disregard for the rights of others or the independent sovereignty of other states on the principles established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. There wasn’t much concern about the inalienable rights of Native Americans either.

IMO all the stuff about “inalienable” rights is therfore manifest, obfuscating tosh. What the gun-nuts believe is that Might is Right – or as Mao eloquently put it, Power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The gun-nuts are undeclared Maoists.

“229. Cherub
This is quite interesting: http://youtu.be/8QjZY3WiO9s

I have some questions as to the validity to this video:

1) How did they select these students?

2) Did the instructor playing the gunman know where the students sat within the classroom? (they all sat in the same position, gunman seems to go right for them after the professor is taken out)

“234. Dave
Hey anyone know where that Guy Dustin is stationed? I’d like to have a word with his C.O about his posts. Calls himself a paratrooper and makes an utter baboon of himself. I’ve taken screenshots and all”

Please point out a law that I violate? I have only spoken for myself, and not the U.S military in anyway.

238. Robin Levett

@Richard Carey #230:

The Blackstone quote ends with: “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” It can’t get much clearer than that. I paraphrased this: “The right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, considered axiomatic to the principle of English liberty”. You said “Nope. Never.” Any objective person can see that my interpretation of the full passage is correct and honest.

Firstly, I was alluding to Magna Carta in my original comment – the wording you quote is followed by an explicit reference to 1215. Magna Carta, considered the basis of English liberty, makes no reference to the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence.

The full passage you quote from Blackstone refers to a group of separate liberties (not “liberty”) one or other of which, he says, a tyranny would by its nature infringe. To protect those liberties, he refers to a number of separate remedies to which subjects of England are entitled. The major protections are the preservation of the constitution of parliament and setting of limits to the royal prerogative. These protections are underpinned by the rights of access to the courts, of petitioning parliament or the king and of the possession and use of arms in self-defence.

That Blackstone considers that the use of arms in self-defence is an underpinning of the liberties to which he refers is unquestionable; the passage does not however say that he considers it “axiomatic” to, or even the most important component of, the preservation of those liberties.

As for the Lincoln quote; it is commonly used in support of a claim that Lincoln was indifferent to slavery, and that hence the War of Southern Aggression was not about slavery. Indeed you so used it. The missing bits show that he remains as staunchly against slavery as he ever was; but that the legal basis upon which the North waged war was the preservation of the Constitution and, by extension, the Union.

As I have said before – read your sources carefully.

I’d add that you haven’t addressed the fact that in the very passage you cite your 1803 US source, if taken as reliable, destroys your argument that it was not until the 1940s that the UK government restricted the right to keep and bear arms in self-defence.

The 1937 act
All it says is the person must have ‘good reason’. Therefore, by changing what is considered ‘good reason’ the rules can be tightened up, like I said.
Rubbish and you know that. Firearms licenses are looked a local level and they follow the act of parliaments.

“The 1937 Firearms Act incorporated various modifications to the 1920 Act based on the recommendations of a 1934 committee chaired by Sir Archibald Bodkin. The resulting legislation raised the minimum age for buying a firearm or airgun from 14 to 17, extended controls to shotguns and other smoothbore weapons with barrels of less than 20 in (510 mm) (later raised by the Firearms Act 1968 to 24 in (610 mm)), transferred certificates for machine guns to military oversight, regulated gun dealers, and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual firearms certificates.
The same year, the Home Secretary decided that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that “firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger”.
Fully automatic weapons were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act. Such weapons are nowadays only available to certain special collectors, museums, prop companies, the military, Police Forces and anyone with the permission of the Home Secretary.” All they did was follow the instructions of tory ministers.
Ref : As the Home Secretary said in 1937: “firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger”.(Malcolm, Joyce Lee (2002). Guns and Violence: The English Experience. Harvard University Press. )

Give me a document showing that socialists gave rules to be tightened up. Acts are passed and the police follow those rules. That is British Parliamentary democracy. All a government can do is ask the police to in act the rules that already there.

“Like most right wing authors, aka David Irving he is not telling the complete truth.”

“That is pathetic” Why do you believe everything John Pilger says just because he has been published?
Also if your only reference is a book from a senior official in the most incompetent and corrupt police force in our countries history. The Ripper case, Hillsborough and the miners strike.

“I pointed you to Hansard and showed you the evidence. He does not mention the 1937 Act. If it was clearly in that Act he would surely have said so. The reason he has to answer the question is because it was not clearly in the law.”

You cannot change the law without an act of parliament.
That is a statement and he was referring to the 1937 act. Tory home secretaries probably referred to same act, see above. . Hansard is not the law it is the musing of politicians. SHOW me the evidence that socialists changed the law in 1945-50

Generally, people on the British left are fall-over-backwards tolerant of the moral deficiencies of other cultures – unless, of course, the other culture is (white) America!

Cultural relativism rools, ok? Unless they are Americans!

(Sunny rightly opposes cultural relativism over Indian rape-culture, though political correctness ensures that few (if any) whites on the left could or would say the same. The safe option for white leftists is that of Owen Jones: make excuses for Indian rape culture, because you are terrified that some idiot might shout rayyyycist.)

241. Robin Levett

@TONE #2440:

Generally, people on the British left are fall-over-backwards tolerant of the moral deficiencies of other cultures – unless, of course, the other culture is (white) America!

I’m not sure you could get more mendacious generalisations into that sentence – but why don’t you try?

242. Chaise Guevara

@ 240 TONE

“Cultural relativism rools, ok? Unless they are Americans!”

I’m a lefty. Most of my friends are lefties. This is a lefty blog. Yet it’s a rare day when I encounter someone into cultural relativism, and anecdotally most of such people I’ve talked to are on the right (saying that we shouldn’t intervene in social injustice in other countries because it’s “imperialist” or whatever).

Be honest. You’ve got nothing to add so you’ve made a nice man out of straw to complain at.

“The safe option for white leftists is that of Owen Jones: make excuses for Indian rape culture, because you are terrified that some idiot might shout rayyyycist.”

Um, didn’t you just essentially shout rayyycist by saying lefties are bigoted against “(white) America”?

You’re all right a lot of the time, TONE. Other times, such as now, you’re a petulant self-parody.

Tone
“Generally, people on the British left are fall-over-backwards tolerant of the moral deficiencies of other cultures – unless, of course, the other culture is (white) America!”
Do you think so? Most lefties I know don’t like any type of religion. Wasn’t it the commies who fought the Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan?
Also most lefties take their lead from white America. Most of the cultural icons beloved by the left (from films of woody Allen, the Simpsons and liberal views on homosexuality) come from the states.

“Sunny rightly opposes cultural relativism over Indian rape-culture, though political correctness ensures that few (if any) whites on the left could or would say the same.”
That is not true. I am not a lefty but the lefties I know are disgusted as much as the righties. My own wife is a lefty feminist and I don’t want to repeat her views about the individuals who carried out the attack.
May I ask what you feel about the Americans who raped in the Mai Lai massacre?
Also political correctness is about good manners. I don’t call people c**ns. Pa**s and spas***s because my parents brought me up not to use insulting language that may hurt another’s feelings not because of political correctness. Soft but true

“The safe option for white leftists is that of Owen Jones: make excuses for Indian rape culture, because you are terrified that some idiot might shout rayyyycist.)”
Jones was wrong but that is one individual not a group.

Gun offenses in the England 5,209 in 1998/99. A decade latter that number is 9,865. For you anti gun people that is an increase of 89%. Good for you.

244 “Good for you.”

The figures show that the UK police were active in gun control. What matters is what happened to gun homicides as a result.

“The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany’s 0.21 (3 times higher).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

244

This has already been answered upthread but here goes again – handgun offences have increased because after possession was banned a large number of existing owners held on to their firearms, which then became a gun-crime, and, unsurprisingly when they were caught in possession of said gun, it was logged as a gun-crime. Simples.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Paul

    Who buys their child an assault rifle for xmas!? RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/MiRmkbTK

  2. MerseyMal

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  3. Daniel Juett

    Who buys their child an assault rifle for xmas!? RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/MiRmkbTK

  4. Martin Nubbins

    I expect they're 'safe' & don't pay video games RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/5TOiju46

  5. Adam Lighterness

    Disturbing – These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/TXfvv2uV via @libcon

  6. Sunny Hundal

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  7. Martin Grouch

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  8. Android Dog

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  9. John Drake

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  10. Nathaniel Southwood

    Wow: http://t.co/PsK88heg

  11. Owen Williams

    "Well, my 10 year old cousin got brass knuckles and an AR-15 for Christmas…pretty jealous actually." http://t.co/qnrGRay9

  12. Major Mustard

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lrdz4uqO via @libcon

  13. Myk Lewis

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  14. Woolly Trumpets

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  15. BevR

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Whnq7Q3d via @libcon

  16. Owen

    Fucking morons. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/pPKlFNjt

  17. ????å®? .

    Fucking morons. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/pPKlFNjt

  18. Oaf

    10 yr old?? RT @owenhants: Fucking morons. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/rkYgjWqX

  19. Emma

    Who buys their child an assault rifle for xmas!? RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/MiRmkbTK

  20. Amy

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  21. Serbinator_15

    Fucking morons. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/pPKlFNjt

  22. Colonel Bob Lawblaw

    10 yr old?? RT @owenhants: Fucking morons. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/rkYgjWqX

  23. Susan Grey

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  24. Mike

    Fucking morons. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/pPKlFNjt

  25. SIRegar Alfin

    Gimana gak banyak penembakan masal, hadia natal aja AR 15 Assault Rifles ..sigh…>>>http://t.co/6EE8zNLK

  26. imFOURrob

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  27. Josh White

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  28. LHB

    Sends America to the dogs – lack of any intelligence RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/XkO69MAe

  29. Soap

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  30. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/q7TO6P3L

  31. Colin Pari

    Very very scary and very very sick. most inappropriate Xmas presents ever. http://t.co/c6bIeRgf

  32. Graham

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  33. Graham

    Please someone tell them about December 28th. RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/eNST25Yb

  34. k.

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  35. saramo

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  36. Westlake

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Z1G0cI1p via @libcon

  37. Sunny Hundal

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  38. Viki

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  39. LucyTweeting

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  40. James O'Keeffe

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  41. Richard Bett

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  42. Margo Milne

    RT @libcon: These Americans (including a 10 year old) got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/Q7pDgrJv

  43. rsidney

    staggering MT @sunny_hundal: These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/Q23Xiccu

  44. Mark Sutherland

    Disturbing @sunny_hundal: These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/WWC3HbKB #icymi

  45. Richard Hemming

    Pretty disturbing reading: MT @sunny_hundal These people (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/eegLxDcq

  46. Padbrit

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  47. Marcus Kernohan

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  48. Kirk Mckeand

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  49. R

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  50. Trudi T

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  51. Jeremiah_Savant

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  52. simon jones

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  53. glenellen

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  54. Chocoholic Girl

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  55. Beatriz Caicedo

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  56. AC

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  57. Kelsey

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  58. Rob Patterson

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  59. Neale Upstone

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/jCmWZ6lb

  60. Zantebaz

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  61. KazEconomics

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #woah

  62. Russell Elliott

    From the land of the free: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/crysfJja via @libcon

  63. Lanie Ingram

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  64. Erich Eichinger

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  65. Hadi Hariri

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  66. Shawn Wildermuth

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  67. Jan Johansson

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  68. tonsoont

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  69. Siân de Freyssinet

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  70. Cal Harding

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/6KFzp1pg

  71. Paige Worthy

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  72. Donald

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  73. Chris Slater-Walker

    These Yanks are just beyond belief. http://t.co/GyYC9l5Q

  74. Hoppa

    These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Christmas http://t.co/Akgwr1Wd #icymi

  75. Alan Burns

    "jump in sales after massacre", xmas gift for teens #speechless #sick RT @libcon: assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/gCMtyIRA

  76. Yours Truly

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/PfYsLV7a via @libcon

  77. These People Are Really Excited About Getting AR-15s for Christmas |

    [...] Hundal about a 10-year-old receiving an AR-15 has been retweeted more than 100 times. The article by Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy has been tweeted many times as well with users adding words like “morons” and [...]

  78. These People Are Really Excited About Getting AR-15s for Christmas — Chris Jones Media

    [...] Hundal about a 10-year-old receiving an AR-15 has been retweeted more than 100 times. The article by Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy has been tweeted many times as well with users adding words like “morons” and [...]

  79. The Media Blog

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  80. paul rayment

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  81. Suze

    Christing shitfucks : http://t.co/VJ4accq8 [h/t @TheMediaTweets ]

  82. Chris Marshall

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  83. Martin Rothe

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  84. Maureen

    :( RT @sunny_hundal These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles (type used in recent massacres) for Christmas http://t.co/Yhw1KXWX #woah

  85. Helen Ayres

    I feel sick…
    “@TheMediaTweets: RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/PaZLhoJo”

  86. Chris Bowden-Smith

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  87. Payal Puri

    For once, am speechless RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/01qyoB6T

  88. Valley Fontaine

    RT @LeePinkerton Americans are scary!! These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas. http://t.co/K8oP9eMT … via @libcon

  89. Hayley Dunlop

    Jaw has actually dropped “@TheMediaTweets: RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/chmR16yC”

  90. sarah

    Jaw has actually dropped “@TheMediaTweets: RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/chmR16yC”

  91. Ian James

    “@TheMediaTweets: RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/OHAFULfu” nopart of this isn't scary

  92. John Devaney

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  93. Celine Fitzmaurice

    woah rt@sunny_hundal: These Americans (incl a 10yr old!) got AR-15 assault rifles, used in recent massacres, for Xmas http://t.co/7aO2qDTB

  94. Elliot Charles Downs

    ugh… fucking yanks; http://t.co/39hm73He

  95. ??????????????????! ???????? | ?????????!

    [...] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/12/26/these-americans-got-ar-15-assault-rifles-for-christmas/ [...]

  96. Socio Imagination

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/2clkmop8

  97. Neil Rostance

    RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ZXpx2rx4

  98. Spazdiv Cuntfeatures

    These very happy 'mericans got themselves some guns for Christmas.

    Hoping they shoot their own faces off.

    http://t.co/7J4YEIUJ

  99. Lenny Henry VIII

    These very happy 'mericans got themselves some guns for Christmas.

    Hoping they shoot their own faces off.

    http://t.co/7J4YEIUJ

  100. Rach Bunts

    These very happy 'mericans got themselves some guns for Christmas.

    Hoping they shoot their own faces off.

    http://t.co/7J4YEIUJ

  101. Noxi

    RT @libcon: These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/GKjw6iuy

  102. Historias de la América delirante | GUERRA ETERNA

    [...] Más ejemplos de amor familiar, aquí. [...]

  103. Kelly Wallace Horne

    These very happy 'mericans got themselves some guns for Christmas.

    Hoping they shoot their own faces off.

    http://t.co/7J4YEIUJ

  104. @scoobyd2uk

    These very happy 'mericans got themselves some guns for Christmas.

    Hoping they shoot their own faces off.

    http://t.co/7J4YEIUJ

  105. maripax62

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/3Lg6ObIq vía @libcon ALUCINANDING

  106. Anxo Rey

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/3Lg6ObIq vía @libcon ALUCINANDING

  107. Beta Wolf

    RT: <BLANK>I… Words have lost me… http://t.co/UeicXh9r #america

  108. Natacha Kennedy

    These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Xmas http://t.co/Cbg8xyTs What are they going to do with them?

  109. Alvaro Vicente

    Vía @guerraeterna veo esto: http://t.co/mjBuRQbT No añadiré comentarios….

  110. Gareth Hughes

    At the best it's appalling bad taste these Americans got assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/ic6N7l1H

  111. Jarrett M

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/2clkmop8

  112. almudena

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/PEUdpi7k vía @libcon

  113. Gonzalo Cazorla

    Los mejores regalos de estas navidades. http://t.co/xlRoOGD1 vía @Guerraeterna

  114. rabble

    What did you get from Santy? An Armalite…
    http://t.co/tIIJjmE2 http://t.co/PyHnr8YY

  115. AJC

    Y mientras tanto, a la vuelta de la esquina (la rica, claro) http://t.co/pbTATez2 vía @libcon

  116. numeroteca

    Happy christmas and happy AR-15 machine gun http://t.co/2Fsrrb4z via @Guerraeterna

  117. Celebrating Christmas With A Bang … « YouViewed/Editorial

    [...] These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas (liberalconspiracy.org) [...]

  118. David Davies

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas ~ http://t.co/U0Nq8sUl

  119. Merry Christmas Here’s Your Assault Rifle « Mediasnoops2

    [...] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/12/26/these-americans-got-ar-15-assault-rifles-for-christmas/ [...]

  120. Francesc

    Gente que da miedo y regala rifles de asalto por navidad http://t.co/hU349XgW via el gran @Guerraeterna

  121. Belle D

    These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Xmas http://t.co/Cbg8xyTs What are they going to do with them?

  122. Malapata

    Estamos locos. Definitivamente->These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WBiHHz2V vía @libcon

  123. Estos estadounidenses recibieron un rifle de asalto AR 15 por Navidad

    [...] Estos estadounidenses recibieron un rifle de asalto AR 15 por Navidad [...]

  124. Enrique Colinet

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  125. Raru!!

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  126. Eduardo Romero

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  127. Malapata

    @Ladelgato Una de ellas además parece venderse bastante bien http://t.co/WBiHHz2V

  128. Outconsumer

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  129. Human after all

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  130. Heck

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  131. Ricardo Gonzalez

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  132. MarKes

    @AngelySaras te va a gustar esto..
    Total después la culpa es de los videojuegos..
    http://t.co/H242zZ55

  133. Zuriflauta

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  134. Benittto

    Estos estadounidenses recibieron un rifle de asalto AR 15 por Navidad [ENG] http://t.co/ArfgfCVa

  135. ioetx

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/vkYNddKM #newtown #nra

  136. Juan Arteaga

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  137. Andy Swidenbank

    Seriously America, WTF? “@TheMediaTweets: RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/TV4xrOke”

  138. Francesca Jarvis

    Seriously America, WTF? “@TheMediaTweets: RT @sunny_hundal: These Americans got AR-15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/TV4xrOke”

  139. Manwë Súlimo

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  140. Rubén Santander

    Qué lindo: después de la masacre de Newtown, el rifle de asalto AR-15 se volvió el regalo de navidad favorito en USA http://t.co/LOwZ1lIf

  141. javiera

    Qué lindo: después de la masacre de Newtown, el rifle de asalto AR-15 se volvió el regalo de navidad favorito en USA http://t.co/LOwZ1lIf

  142. Disraeli Mateo

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  143. Chris Boese

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/dR8MimIn via @libcon

  144. Karen Motley

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/dR8MimIn via @libcon

  145. Paul Dockerty

    These Americans got AR 15 assault rifles for Christmas http://t.co/zR5soDZE – But blame videogames if they use them…

  146. Thom Binding

    I don't think this could be more awful…. >> http://t.co/6S6FhYw3

  147. Niall Walsh

    #SweetLandOfLiberty http://t.co/hvqVoib6





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.