Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough

I disagree with you!Feck wrote:But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?
Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough
OK should we have a duel ?Jörmungandr wrote:I disagree with you!Feck wrote:But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?
Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough
Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?Feck wrote: OK should we have a duel ?
*snork*Jörmungandr wrote:Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?Feck wrote: OK should we have a duel ?
Jörmungandr wrote:Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?Feck wrote: OK should we have a duel ?
Feck wrote:Jörmungandr wrote:Sounds like a plan. Do you need me to lend you a pistol?Feck wrote: OK should we have a duel ?
Pistol Why? I thought swords
Feck wrote:
Which the federal BATFE knew about but allowed to be illegally exported to Mexico anyway as a part of "Operation Gunrunner," at least two of which showed back up in the U.S. at the scene of the murder of a Border Patrol agent, all thanks to Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama.Feck wrote:With guns bought in TexasCoito ergo sum wrote:I meant that the reason New Mexico's rate is high is because of its proximity to Mexico, which has a murder rate of like 22 per hundred thousand.Warren Dew wrote:The drug trade is "not related to American culture"? Granted it's not related to gun regulation.Coito ergo sum wrote:US states range from a low of 0.8 per hundred thousand (New Hampshire) and 1.1 (Hawaii and Vermont) to 8.7 (New Mexico). For obvious reasons, New Mexico, bordering on Mexico....has its murder rate jacked way the fuck up for reasons not related to American culture.
I wouldn't want to live in a place where the government makes the decision whether or not the individual gets to carry a handgun because that's the government making a statistic out of every individual, each of whom have a right to make that decision for themselves.Feck wrote:There was a UK case recently where a young game keeper fucked up really badly and a Negligent Discharge killed his GF He phone the police told them what had happened went outside and killed himself .
I like guns (long ones ,not little sneaky people killers ) I think the UK has gone way too far in their restriction of them . I think the US has too few restrictions I never want to live in a place that normal citizens feel that carrying a hand gun is required for everyday safety .
No, but my and my family's personal safety and security in our own homes is absolutely worth a criminal's life if they unlawfully enter my home to commit a crime therein and I think that they are going to use any degree of force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.One thing in favour of UK laws is that minor criminals don't get killed for stealing a car or for burglary ... It may seem that the householder has a right to protect property BUT honestly is your TV , stereo or car worth as much as a teenagers life ?
Obviously yes, if you're carrying it for the purposes of armed self defense. Carrying a weapon not designed to kill people is far less effective and efficient.Feck wrote:No matter what is said there is a comparison between the murder (and death )rate and the availability of guns . Should any citizen want or need a weapon solely designed to kill people ?
Red herring. You don't even know what "full auto" means, nor do you understand how true "full auto" machine guns are regulated in the U.S. (and yes, it's legal to own one)Is there a legitimate use for a full auto to be kept at home or in the car ?
So what? They can kill you just as dead with a knife, or a cricket bat, or a rock, or a lamp, or a piece of cord. What the criminal is carrying by way of a weapon is of absolutely no interest whatsoever to me. If he poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm with his FISTS (like threatening to punch a small child), I'm going to shoot him dead, and be perfectly justified in doing so. The whole point of concealed carry laws is to give the law-abiding citizen at least equal, and preferably superior firepower to what the thug is carrying, so as to better protect the citizen and perhaps induce the criminal to run away merely by presenting superior force, which happens to be the case in something like 60 percent of the cases in the U.S. where firearms are used defensively, but not discharged at the criminal.i've said in many threads that UK gun laws are insane ,mostly made by politicians in response to incidents where a perp was breaking the laws we did have anyway . BUT British people don't actually ever consider that a crim is likely to be carrying a gun .
The "better way to live" is for government to piss off when it comes to how law-abiding citizens choose to arm themselves against the potential for violent criminal attack and stick to regulating the circumstances under which deadly physical force may be used in defense of person or premises. That way everybody makes their own choices and lives with the consequences thereof.Can none of the Americans see that this is a better way to live ?
Here's a note for you: Having and presenting a firearm to a home invader does not mean that you are required to discharge it and kill him. In the U.S., about 60 percent of the time, or more, the mere display of the firearm is enough to thwart the crime, drive off the invader or cause them to surrender immediately, at which point you hold them at gunpoint till the police arrive.Feck wrote:I've caught burglars in my home , I wanted to hit them with a stick ,I never picked up a serious blade , I definitely did not feel the need to apply lethal force ,One of the reasons was that It never occurred to me that they would be armed with much more than a knife (not a problem ) . I didn't hurt them (maybe should have ) But there was no reason for anyone to lose their life , If it had happened in America I think it would have been much more likely someone would ......
What, you have to wait until the DO harm you before you can kill them? What a stupid policy. Here in the U.S. you must "reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm" before you are permitted to use lethal force in self-defense in public. In Colorado, and many other states, the legal presumption of threat is significantly lowered inside one's home, where a criminal intruder the homeowner reasonably thinks is going to use "any degree of force, no matter how slight" risks being lawfully killed.Pappa wrote:You're allowed to defend yourself using "reasonable force" (which may involve the death of the attacker). Killing someone on the assumption that they might intend to harm you is not regarded as reasonable at all.Coito ergo sum wrote:That's a shame. I would think that someone breaking into your home at night while a man's wife and child were in the home (where they should be entitled to sleep through the night peacefully) ought to allow a man to defend himself and his loved ones. If that's a criminal offense in Britain, then I feel very sorry for the citizens of your country. It seems you are at the mercy of those who would invade your homes.Pappa wrote:If you did that in the UK, you'd end up in prison without question.Coito ergo sum wrote:But, I do know it is worth the peace of mind, mental well-being, and privacy of my wife, and my child, and god damn right I'll fucking kill the sonofabitch that threatens them, and I don't think I ought to be burdened with the responsibility of determining what their "intention" is (whether to take a tv or rape my wife or kidnap my child). The worst intent on their part ought to be presumed, and the burden should be on them to prove otherwise, and if they don't and I take my "rounders" bat and shove it in their ear, then I ought to get a medal.
I was talking about the murder rate (not limited to guns) in New Mexico, which isn't Mexico.Feck wrote:But I wasn't the one who mentioned Mexico in the first place was I . It seems you can blame gun crime one US state on Mexico but when I quote articles from reputable US papers that say a significant amount of the guns in Mexico come from the US then somehow I'm in Error ?
Whatever, I have tried to explain in this thread how I feel about the free and easy availability of fire arms I have not posted gun phobic nonsense ,If you disagree with me then fair enough
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests