BluWagon

<sigh>

Paranoid: Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others

Once again, our cultural differences are obvious - as I said before, I look a gun as a tool. I have neither an extreme and irrational fear or distrust of anyone - although I'm sure you'll dispute this.

Odd - you english seemed to have banned nearly all legal ownership of firearms for something that happened 7 years ago - in Scotland. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't know how you view the Scots, but isn't Scotland

If I'm paranoid, wouldn't that make the entire United Kingdom paranoid as well, by similar reasoning, paranoid as well?

Brendan Hughes

Yes. And it happened some years before that in Hungerford, which is in England, not too far from London. I think his name was Michael Ryan, if you want to search. Thanks for the example - it illustrates very well my whole point, which is probably what divides the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies, and you seem to have missed.

Succinctly:

We had a massacre - we banned guns. You saw a massacre, so you think more people should carry them.


??

Brendan Hughes

...and I certainly don't see how the actions of one individual, who justifies himself by what happened X thousand miles away, can be compared with the actions of a legislature who are responsible for the safety of a nation (the UK) within which at least two massacres happened. I'm sure there was a third biggie in the 80s or 90s, but I've forgotten it.

Compare - we have to stop these things happening within our borders

to

It happened over there [as already described] so it might happen to me one day.

If someone goes out to do their grocery shopping in a ridiculously low-crime neighbourhood armed with a handgun just because of a massacre that happened 15 years previously a thousand miles away, then yep, I'd say that fits well within your definition of paranoid. Tell me you live in Washington and I'll change my mind.

BluWagon

I don't think I've missed it - we're different, and I'm trying to explain the reasons why, at least in my opinion, this is the case. We seem to agree on this point - I objected to being painted with the "shoot'em up American" brush.

My question is why you're trying to call my state of mind into question rather than showing me why I'm wrong. And you've ignored my question - how is what happened in Texas different from Scotland - different outcome, certainly - but you're attacking my reasoning, not the outcome. If Texas is a

isn't Scotland as well? How is this supposed to convince me that I'm wrong, or as you put, have I missed your point again? How is basing my deciscion on something that happened in Texas a good number of years ago different from England basing their desicion on something that happened in Scotland? Perhaps it'd help me if you clarified - are you attacking ME, or my REASONING? By all means, please enlighten me.

It seems, going back through your posts, that I haven't missed your point, you've missed stating it until now. Mayhap I'm dense, but your 1st post quotes statistics, your second corrects an assumption I've made, and your third paints me to be a lunatic. Where have you made your aforementioned point?

BluWagon

How is Texas "over there"? It's a 4 hour plane ride - but I'm nitpicking semantics now.

I feel I am responsible for my own safety, and refuse to rely on the gov't to protect me? I don't know, does that help clarify things?

Oddly enough, Washington DC, one of the highest crime areas in the country, has a total gun ban. So sorry, even if I told I did live in DC, I couldn't even own one, let alone carry one.

Let me ask you - do you feel you have the right to defend yourself? Do you think that it's the government's responsibilty to protect you? Seriously, I'm curious..

Carlos The Jackel

I think the fact you see a Gun as something you can defend yourself with is the difference.

As long as the attackers in this country (UK as im in Scotland) dont use guns then there is no need for us to have guns. Fists and a baseball bat will do me just fine

Anyway as I stated before once you all have guns - defender and attacker - you are all worse off! Unless you can shoot the attackers bullit as it heads towards you!

289

BW

I'm really not trying to have a go, but can you not see that there's a genuine problem with your argument.

Whilst I accept that there are crazed people everywhere, does not the fact that this person actually had a gun to use in the first place seem rather odd. And, perhaps, if it'd been harder to get the gun the tragedy would have been prevented without recourse to citiznes with concealed handguns.

A question for you. It's a really hot summer's day, and you're walking to the local park. Do you take a raincoat? Almost certainly not, because the law of probabilities suggests you really don't need to. Sure, you might get wet, but it's unlikely.

But on the off chance that a psycho might drive his SUV into your store and start shooting, you take a gun. Come on, that's the most fantastically improbable reason to carry a gun I've ever heard, and certainly not based on any kind of rational determination of fact.

I do understand that guns are an inanimate object and cannot of their own volition kill people. Yet we have to take a test to examine our suitability to drive a car, to show that we're responsible. Unless I'm much mistaken, no such competence is required for gun ownership, other than to show that you're not mentally unstable; yet even this doesn't show ability to use the gun responsibly and effectively.

In the instance of the nutter in the restaurant and the lady with the gun in the car, what might have happened had she been able to draw her weapon? It's possible that she'd have been able to disarm the assailant; it's also possible (and it happens a fair amount of the time, I understand) that she'd pull the weapon, realise she couldn't pull the trigger (a difficult thing to do, I'm sure you'd agree) and either end up as a statistic or, worse, a statistic who's provided a new weapon to the assailant.

You and I have some common ground here, but different solutions. Because I think that fundamentally people are NOT responsible, I believe we need laws. After all, if we were all excellent drivers, there'd be no need for speed limits, as we'd all drive to our abilities and take full notice of road conditions, regulating our speed accordingly. We all accept, however, that about 90%, maybe more, of all drivers are pretty shoddy and need to be controlled for their own good so that they don't do 60 past a school.

In the same way, I believe that people will always argue because that's a natural human trait. Sometime those arguments will turn into fights, and at such times reason goes out of the window and people will use whatever means are at hand to end the argument. Not all people are like this, but sufficient for me to want to keep guns out of their hands, especially when drink/drugs are involved.

I'd love everyone to be reasonable and nice, but that's never going to happen. Your solution is for the entire populace to be armed to ensure that no-one pulls a gun; mine is to remove all the guns so that if things do go pear-shaped there are bruises rather than bodies.

I don't blame guns for the woes of society, and if you've seen any of my previous posts you'll know that I have no beef with asylum seekers. I blame people for the state of their society, but can't help thinking that putting guns out there for easy access by all is as irresponsible an act as could be imagined.

tiggers

Blu,

Rarely do I laugh out loud at this bulletin board, but that is one of the best responses I've ever read.

All,

To come back to the argument I can see Blu's point of view very clearly - let me ask you all this. Why in the US in the states/cities with more gun control and even bans on gun ownership altogether has the gun crime rate risen (to in some cases the highest in the US) since these were introduced. Also why in the UK has gun crime and specifically hand gun crime risen sharply since the bans on ownership resulting from the Dunblane incident.

Come on guys these are the same arguments you use against speed cameras - the statistics tell one story whereas the politicians/authorities tell us another. In the case of speed cameras you want to believe the statistics, but because it doesn't suit your personal beliefs you choose not to in the case of guns. Funny that isn' it?

tiggers.

BluWagon

Stupid DNS problems - making work at work. Bah..

289 - no worries, it's the internet, so it's hard to tell. And I was in no way implying you had an issue with asylum seekers, it was an example - sorry, I forget how sensitive an issue it is. Just trying to use a cogent example.

Anywho - don't mistake me for an anarchist - I'm all for laws. And we do, as most people on this topic don't realize, have common ground - we want people to stop doing bad things. Laws are great, particularly when they work - but when the don't, ahh, therein lies the rub.

Am I saying every Englishman should be armed? Of course not. I'm not even advocating your lifting of the ban, even though I personally think it's done you no service. Your problem is that your government and your police seem incapable of enforcing their own laws (I'm not throwing stones, believe me, as I certainly live in a glass house), and that's what needs to be addressed. At the heart of this matter isn't gun control, or bat control, or whatever - it's people control - behavior control. Sadly, neither of us have found a solution to make people stop doing bad things. And since I can't control society, or the people in it, I'm just choosing to protect myself - sure, the odds are billion to one that ANYTHING would EVER REMOTELY happen, but Winston Churchill once said "When you need a revolver you tend to need one very badly", and I agree. Call me crazy (or paranoid, that seems a bit more popular), but that's how I feel.

Hopefully I haven't come off as someone who's solution to the world's problems is a pistol - because it's most definetely not. But I do believe when everything falls apart and the ****e hits the fan, YOU are ultimately responsible for your own safety.

Oh, and as aside, yes, many states do require competence tests for carrying a firearm, and require classes to purchase one - as well as pretty stringent background checks. I suspect all that filters across the ocean is federal level legistlation.

BluWagon

That's odd, I can't edit that.. hmm

Anywho, I just caught this:

This is by NO means my solution. It is certainly true not every should have a gun - and there are millions of people in this country who choose not to. I advocate CHOICE - there are no easy solutions to this problem - violence has been with us since time began, and I don't think it's a trait we're going to loose anytime soon.

TAZMAN

Carlos...our attackers over here do use guns....