This fucking scares me...

[losCHUNK]

memphs on the same standpoint as me i think

our society doesnt need guns so why should we place a device freely available in the hands of the general public

when i go out i like knowing that the likelyhood of a chav blasting me in the face because i accidently on purpose dropped kebab meat on his shoe is close to nil

why should i trust someone else with my life

[Geebs]

Approximately 99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however -- criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally wounded. Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home.

These are what are known as "made-up facts"

[Geebs]

but hey, I guess a firsthand account from someone I knew quite well doesn't have any sort of evidentiary weight).

It doesn't.

[Geebs]

How 'bout some maths on the "2.1 million defensive uses of guns a year" stat?

tnf quotes rates of violent crime in the US as about 600 per 100,000 population. The US population is about 300,000,000, giving us 1.8 million violent crimes a year. This gives us about 0.3 million non-violent crimes a year in which a gun is used defensively - so presumably, guns are being used as a measured, proportionate response to littering, jaywalking, public nudity, and parking in a restricted zone by US citizens 300,000 times a year. Smell a rat?

[Dave]

Wow. That's a lot of assumptions in one post. Have you ever even BEEN to the US? For more than a few days?

Yet the Americans arguing that they need to carry guns for self defense. Yes i'm generalising, but i'm not contradicting.
Compared to Wales the US IS the wild sodding west. I get your point, but it applies to yourself as much as me.

I love how you foreigners like to reduce our country into one entity: The US. I could generalized about Wales.

Tyranny of King John
The tyranny of the Union's most ignominious monarch, King John was tarred by an inherent division between the Principality of Wales, and England. His monarchy saw dangerous factions form as well as the grave prospect of collapse of English/Welsh solidarity.

The cause of this discontent is slightly bizarre. English high society and gentry stood aghast as King John presided over a highly controversial agricultural policy. It was upon his edict that a popular Welsh assertion was legalised and therefore to an extent, legitimised. James Sperike, a member of the King's court is recorded as commenting "ye is somewhat perturbed and chagrined by the insouciant, immoral and, I hazard to say injudicious pronouncements upon the King's conscience." Indeed to this day, this Welsh postulation remains a significant problem in the Welsh valleys. This prosaic myth was that having sexual intercourse with livestock, in particular sheep, would improve their yield. Unsurprisingly, the English stood in moral outrage, and launched against their monarch's will a vast campaign against the unethical Welsh.

The wise English leaders showed great sagacity in cognizing that the most efficacious way to subjugate Welsh society was through job creation, rather then the brutal, unforgiving wholesale slaughtering of Welsh men (not women and children of course). To this end they built mines to employ the misguided Welsh man. This was based on the assumption that the less than industrious Welshman was, whilst under ground for 23 hours each day, unlikely to have the opportunity to commit such misdemeanours.

As such, through this magnanimous approach the erudite English prohibited the corrupt Welsh from their propensity towards depravity. For centuries undisturbed sheep grazed and prospered, producing fine wool and succulent lamb. Unfortunately, their peace has been broken in the last 20 years as the feasibility of mining in Wales became unpractical. Government crimes statistics have revealed a clear correlation between the rise in structurally unemployed former miners and the increase in sheep penetration incidents. The problem has become such a serious affliction that Tony Blair regularly delights his ennobled English audiences with his axiom, "I am going to get tough on sheep shagging, and tough on the causes of sheep shagging." Thus far efforts to ameliorate this dire predicament have proved relatively unsuccessful. These have included an eclectic array of policies, including such replacement job creation as paying Welshmen to lick windows clean and un-tooled cesspit cleansing. Out of desperation and in an attempt to couch itself in a democratic pretence the government has launched a major public consultation. Suggestions to http://www.labour.co.uk


Dr. Ivor Kitten, Bangkok School of Bestiality studies

[tnf]

Wow. That's a lot of assumptions in one post. Have you ever even BEEN to the US? For more than a few days?

Yet the Americans arguing that they need to carry guns for self defense. Yes i'm generalising, but i'm not contradicting.
Compared to Wales the US IS the wild sodding west. I get your point, but it applies to yourself as much as me.

Where in the hell is anyone in here arguing that the NEED to carry a gun for self-defense?

Except for MidnightQ4.

[losCHUNK]

lol, he aint welsh

and he was saying the america is the wild west... it has to be.... we have no guns ! (well not a lot anyway)

@dave

[tnf]

HEY EVERYONE, HOW ABOUT GETTING BACK TO WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DEBATE WAS ABOUT?

GUNS ARE LEGAL IN THE STATES. FACT. DEAL WITH IT.

NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

you Americans sure like your guns

[Dave]

lol, he aint welsh

and he was saying the america is the wild west... it has to be.... we have no guns ! (well not a lot anyway)

@dave

who ain't welsh? memphis? at least I know the difference between Welsh and English, unlike some brits who think America is some kind uniform shade of gray

[Dave]

you Americans sure like your guns

god damn right

[Bdw3]

you guys got age limits on guns ?

not like

for ages of 5 +

i mean like

for ages 18 - 90

A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, you must be at least 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law.

[Geebs]

NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Legally, retreat is not a synonym of "run away".

re·treat
n.

The act or process of withdrawing from a dangerous situation
- Many jurisdictions require that a person must have at least attempted a retreat, if it was possible to do so with safety, in order for a defense of self-defense to prevail. Retreat from an attack in one's own home, however, is usually not required. retreat
vb.

[losCHUNK]

lol, he aint welsh

and he was saying the america is the wild west... it has to be.... we have no guns ! (well not a lot anyway)

@dave

who ain't welsh? memphis? at least I know the difference between Welsh and English, unlike some brits who think America is some kind uniform shade of gray

he called america the US

its like calling united kingdom, the UK

[Dave]

which in turn is like imagining everyone within those borders, US, UK, whatever, is the same

[tnf]

How 'bout some maths on the "2.1 million defensive uses of guns a year" stat?

tnf quotes rates of violent crime in the US as about 600 per 100,000 population. The US population is about 300,000,000, giving us 1.8 million violent crimes a year. This gives us about 0.3 million non-violent crimes a year in which a gun is used defensively - so presumably, guns are being used as a measured, proportionate response to littering, jaywalking, public nudity, and parking in a restricted zone by US citizens 300,000 times a year. Smell a rat?

No, I just smell someone trying to deflect a bigger issue with statistics and the problems contained therein.

Why don't you give us *your* position on this whole issue, so we can at least know exactly where you are coming from? I mean, obviously, in your opinion, the American way of doing things doesn't work. According to the graph that you called irrelevant (take the data for what its worth), there were more violent crimes in England (per capita) or whever it was than in the US for a period of 3 or so years. If guns are so conducive to crime across the board, why was there this disparity in the violent crime rates?

Actually, don't even bother with that. Just let me know what the 'correct' policy on guns is. I'm being serious here...if this debate is to continue, it's only fair that you let us know this. (although its hard to call this a debate as everyone seems to be arguing about something different than I am).

[tnf]

NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Good, so the burden is on the victim of the violent crime to justify why the acted the way they did when being attacked.

[seremtan]

Indeed, i'm currently of the opinion that the general public have no right whatsoever to own a device made to kill someone when they have no good reason to.

and yet the state does have that right? this is the unspoken assumption running through this thread i can't stand, the idea that massive killing power should be concentrated in the hands of a few while we should all recoil in abject terror at the thought of joe average having a piddling little 9mm locked up in his closet. remember the recent kerfuffle in iraq, how the whole thing was a crime that slaughtered 100,000 people? and the people who did that are the one's you want to trust with firepower? fucking hell...

and more generally: am i really the only non-american in this thread who doesn't have a problem with the RKBA? i mean, come on people: the yanks lifted the 2nd amendment straight from the english bill of rights in the first place (though they dropped the bit about protestants)

[losCHUNK]

which in turn is like imagining everyone within those borders, US, UK, whatever, is the same

well, yea ?

when i say germany i say "them germans"

when i say russia i say "russia"

i dont say

12 hendre farm drive
newport
gwent
np19 9py

[Geebs]

NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Good, so the burden is on the victim of the violent crime to justify why the acted the way they did when being attacked.

Assuming that they're the one who is still alive, I'd guess the burden is on them to prove they were the victim.

[S@M]

oh Dave,
thats poor, very poor. its nothing like what your suggesting - if that makes you feel bad, go shoot someone

[tnf]

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Good, so the burden is on the victim of the violent crime to justify why the acted the way they did when being attacked.

Assuming that they're the one who is still alive, I'd guess the burden is on them to prove they were the victim.

I used the term 'victim' to imply that this was already a given. I just don't think someone should have to worry about being sued by the guy who attacked them because he was shot in the nuts while trying to mug them at knifepoint.

[tnf]

Indeed, i'm currently of the opinion that the general public have no right whatsoever to own a device made to kill someone when they have no good reason to.

and yet the state does have that right? this is the unspoken assumption running through this thread i can't stand, the idea that massive killing power should be concentrated in the hands of a few while we should all recoil in abject terror at the thought of joe average having a piddling little 9mm locked up in his closet. remember the recent kerfuffle in iraq, how the whole thing was a crime that slaughtered 100,000 people? and the people who did that are the one's you want to trust with firepower? fucking hell...

and more generally: am i really the only non-american in this thread who doesn't have a problem with the RKBA? i mean, come on people: the yanks lifted the 2nd amendment straight from the english bill of rights in the first place (though they dropped the bit about protestants)

Don't confuse this issue with silly logic.

[S@M]

12 hendre farm drive
newport
gwent
np19 9py

What time is teh party and do you have a sauna/spa for the girls (nightshade etc).

[losCHUNK]

12 hendre farm drive
newport
gwent
np19 9py

What time is teh party and do you have a sauna/spa for the girls (nightshade etc).

doors always open for you sexy bunch

an yea we do, bring your own tho just in case