As many here know my views on firearm ownership

[lolwhassup]

Who said anything about implementing a UK style system, what I was trying to get through to you was that looking at places where these systems are in place and working with a view to developing your own systems (not exact copies but rather taking bits and pieces that will work for you), it may just be closing loopholes or it may be better background checks or it could be entire systems I don't know or care because it has to be a system that works for your situation.

The problem is that you continue to look at this from the imaginary position that any sort of control equals mass confiscation and banning which remains in my opinion a rather unintelligent way of looking at the problem and it means you can not solve it.

As I have mentioned before it doesn't matter what you or I say in the end unless you can find a way to solve this problem the government will solve it for you.

As for Britinafrica's arguments well given that 90% of the "facts" he has posted are the discredited and disproved nonsense that is continually regurgitated by pro-gun groups under the "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it" philosophy I see no reason to comment on any of his bluster and BS, you can choose to believe it or you can look for the truth which path you choose is a comment on your own objectivity not mine.

Now we can sit here and go around in circles throwing out red herrings by the truckload but there are two facts that are incontrovertible:
1) You have the most guns.
2) You have the most shootings.

What you draw from that is really up to you.

Wait one second, you sound like VP Biden right now, first you bring up the UK system then you come and tell me you weren't talking about it right after I disproved you? Right... Like I said about you Kiwis and Aussies on this forum in my earlier post.

Oh yes, I did my own research and after looking at the two of you going at it I'm more inclined to believe Britinafrica because you are the one spouting the nonsense and exaggerated and misinterpreted figures.

Enough said, Good day to you gentlemen, I'm going to get off this thread and let Britinafrica deal with you since he has more patience and is more well versed in this than me.

 

[headwards]

Our moral high horse is nothing more then a distanced and unbiased view from society whose laws actually work.
Say all you like about opinions but the fact is that what we have keeps us alive and the whole rest of the world is shaking its head looking at you- apart from of course South Africa from which anyone with the money seems to immigrate to New Zealand as soon as possible.
Cling to your religion and cling to your firearm laws and cling to your nuclear policies, we have given opinions and all there is left to do is watch your society implode on itself, while you wring your hands and point your fingers at subversive music for your problems.

 

[MontyB]

Wait one second, you sound like VP Biden right now, first you bring up the UK system then you come and tell me you weren't talking about it right after I disproved you? Right... Like I said about you Kiwis and Aussies on this forum in my earlier post.

Oh yes, I did my own research and after looking at the two of you going at it I'm more inclined to believe Britinafrica because you are the one spouting the nonsense and exaggerated and misinterpreted figures.

Enough said, Good day to you gentlemen, I'm going to get off this thread and let Britinafrica deal with you since he has more patience and is more well versed in this than me.

Christ I think another month of listening to you and Brit and I may nominate both of you for a Darwin award, although thinking about it I may start doubting evolution if I listen to anymore of your idiocy.

Try to remember in your life that just you want to believe something doesn't make it true although now I think I understand religion.

 

[BritinBritain]

Who said anything about implementing a UK style system, what I was trying to get through to you was that looking at places where these systems are in place and working with a view to developing your own systems (not exact copies but rather taking bits and pieces that will work for you), it may just be closing loopholes or it may be better background checks or it could be entire systems I don't know or care because it has to be a system that works for your situation.

I see now you are back peddling. You've climbed down from your high horse of restricting firearms to closing loopholes.

The problem is that you continue to look at this from the imaginary position that any sort of control equals mass confiscation and banning which remains in my opinion a rather unintelligent way of looking at the problem and it means you can not solve it.

Mass confiscation has resulted from restrictive gun laws in recent years (forgetting Hitlers Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist, China to name a few) , Botswana, Zimbabwe and now South Africa. Over 50% of firearm owners were forced to hand their firearms into the South African police. The only unintelligent way of looking at anything is you. You might think you know it all, but you don't. Mao Tse Tung said a few years ago, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

As I have mentioned before it doesn't matter what you or I say in the end unless you can find a way to solve this problem the government will solve it for you.

Yet you are always spouting your idea of gun control.

As for Britinafrica's arguments well given that 90% of the "facts" he has posted are the discredited and disproved nonsense that is continually regurgitated by pro-gun groups under the "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it" philosophy I see no reason to comment on any of his bluster and BS, you can choose to believe it or you can look for the truth which path you choose is a comment on your own objectivity not mine.

Absolute bollocks, I have shot your bullsh!te down time and time again, you don't like it when people don't agree with you and prove you wrong. You cannot comment on what I say, because you cannot refute it. I have asked you for facts and figures and sources for those facts and figures. So where are they?

Now we can sit here and go around in circles throwing out red herrings by the truckload but there are two facts that are incontrovertible:
1) You have the most guns.
2) You have the most shootings.

What you draw from that is really up to you.

The only one throwing out red herrings is you sunbeam in an attempt to discredit what has been proven time and time again.

 

[BritinBritain]

Christ I think another month of listening to you and Brit and I may nominate both of you for a Darwin award, although thinking about it I may start doubting evolution if I listen to anymore of your idiocy.

The only idiocy Monty is the bollocks you try and ram down people's throats. You occasionally stumble over the truth, but you quickly pick yourself up and carry on as if nothing happened.

lolwhassup carried out his own research without prompting or help from me, he has come to the same conclusion that I have, "you don't have a freaking clue what you are spouting off about and your so called research is fictitious and fabricated." You accuse people of cherry picking, when you do the exact same thing

Try to remember in your life that just you want to believe something doesn't make it true although now I think I understand religion.

You act like your arrogance is a virtue.

I really cannot wait and see what claptrap you come up with next.

 

[MontyB]

The only idiocy Monty is the bollocks you try and ram down people's throats. You occasionally stumble over the truth, but you quickly pick yourself up and carry on as if nothing happened.

lolwhassup carried out his own research without prompting or help from me, he has come to the same conclusion that I have, "you don't have a freaking clue what you are spouting off about and your so called research is fictitious and fabricated." You accuse people of cherry picking, when you do the exact same thing

Rubbish you are spouting the lines he wants to believe therefore he blindly follows you, the weak tend to do that.
As for who is spouting rubbish it is you dribbling on about soaring gun crime rates in Australia and Britain since they restricted weapons even though you cant get either Australians or Britons to back you on the claims and every non-gun related fact check site disputes or disproves the claims but I am sure you are right all of the non-progun data out there is fabricated and everyone is out to get you watch out for the black SUVs and helicopters.

Now all you can muster is the intellectual equivalent of a "no you are" argument.

Face it you are little more than an NRA shill who can not justify his argument with facts so instead is trying to win with bluster, bullying and falsehoods and I am grateful that your paranoia on this issue alone would bar you from a firearms license in this country.

 

[BritinBritain]

Rubbish you are spouting the lines he wants to believe therefore he blindly follows you, the weak tend to do that..

No one follows me blindly, he did his own research and like me he found your so called research ill prepared, fabricated and nonsense. But that aside, the lad has more sense then you will ever have.

As for who is spouting rubbish it is you dribbling on about soaring gun crime rates in Australia and Britain since they restricted weapons even though you cant get either Australians or Britons to back you on the claims and every non-gun related fact check site disputes or disproves the claims but I am sure you are right all of the non-progun data out there is fabricated and everyone is out to get you watch out for the black SUVs and helicopters..

You are getting more and more silly and childish with each and every post. Show me where I said there was soaring gun crime in UK or Australia. Again a figment of your over active imagination. WHAT I did say was handguns are banned in UK, yet criminals are getting hold of them along with SMG's.

Now all you can muster is the intellectual equivalent of a "no you are" argument..

lol you really are showing yourself up for the sanctimonious and self opinionated twonk that you are. The only thing you can muster come from your over active and inventive imagination, and not a very intelligent imagination at that. Again another silly and childish post from you.

Face it you are little more than an NRA shill who can not justify his argument with facts so instead is trying to win with bluster, bullying and falsehoods and I am grateful that your paranoia on this issue alone would bar you from a firearms license in this country.

LOL I've given you facts which you conveniently chose to ignore as they ripped your claptrap to shreds. I don't have to win with bluster or bullying, I have asked you for facts and figures and sources of those facts and figures, yet you have shown me nothing but your complete and total ignorance and arrogance. You don't like to be shown up for the idiot that you really are. Why would I want a firearm licence in New Zealand and live among prats like you? I've heard more coherent arguments from a schizophrenic with Tourette's.

Again you are showing yourself to be a complete and utter fool. It's scary to think that people like you are allowed to own firearms.

There's an old saying Monty which I strongly suggest that you take on board, "Its better that people think you are a fool, rather then opening your mouth and confirming it.

I really can't wait for what rubbish you come up with next. Fire away Monty, I'm getting excited.

 

[BritinBritain]

My argument is, people should have the right to chose whether they can own a firearm for self defence and not be restricted or refused the right to do so by government and/or the police or chose not to.

 

[George]

My argument is, people should have the right to chose whether they can own a firearm for self defence and not be restricted or refused the right to do so by government and/or the police or chose not to.

Amazing how some people are happy with the situation of a Govt flunkie having the power to say you can't have a gun unless you can prove to the flunkie you need it.

 

[muscogeemike]

This is not a new issue:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for assailants; the serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” Cesar Beccarid, 1764; as quoted by Thomas Jefferson, 1776

 

[lolwhassup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPlCjr0Vw


Just something I found that I thought i would share with the rest of you.

 

[senojekips]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPlCjr0Vw


Just something I found that I thought i would share with the rest of you.

And yet the US public wonder why these attacks keep occurring,...

"You cannot and will not legislate to protect the unarmed public"

Do I hear "Loony Tunes" music in the background. ANY Law can be changed including Amendments to the US Constitution. Remember the 18th Amendment? That was changed with a minimum of fuss once it was admitted that it was a stupid amendment in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is no different.

 

[lolwhassup]

And yet the US public wonder why these attacks keep occurring,...

"You cannot and will not legislate to protect the unarmed public"

Do I hear "Loony Tunes" music in the background. ANY Law can be changed including Amendments to the US Constitution. Remember the 18th Amendment? That was changed with a minimum of fuss once it was admitted that it was a stupid amendment in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is no different.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY2JR92Scmk"]Incredible Speech on Gun Violence - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MontyB]

I found this to be a very interesting read, during the hunt for data on Florida's crime rate I have been to hundreds of sites many of them pro-gun and many of them anti-gun and it has been very difficult finding sites that are not partisan however this one seemed pretty direct in its use of raw data.

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts

We offer facts and context as a national gun-control debate intensifies. Posted on December 20, 2012 , Corrected on December 21, 2012

Summary

The mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., has reignited a national debate on gun control. As elected leaders begin the dialogue, some facts are clear — there has been a massive increase in gun sales. Some things are not so clear — such as whether there is causation between more guns and more violent crimes. And some are contrary to the general impression — for example, the rate of gun murders is down, not up.
We have decided to look at some of the rhetoric and how it squares with the facts, while offering some broader context to inform the debate.

• Rep. Louie Gohmert said that “every time … conceal-carry [gun laws] have been allowed the crime rate has gone down.” But that is far from a settled issue in academia.
• Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign used the number of daily gun murders as proof that “gun violence rates are not” going down. But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.
• Federal data also show violent crimes committed with guns — including murders, aggravated assaults and robberies — have declined for three straight years.
• Rep. Donna Edwards said that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools. By our count, the list shows 130 school shootings since Columbine that resulted in at least one student or school official being killed or injured — still unacceptably high, but about a quarter fewer than claimed.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

 

[BritinBritain]

And yet the US public wonder why these attacks keep occurring,...

"You cannot and will not legislate to protect the unarmed public"

Absolutely correct, I agree totally

Do I hear "Loony Tunes" music in the background. ANY Law can be changed including Amendments to the US Constitution. Remember the 18th Amendment? That was changed with a minimum of fuss once it was admitted that it was a stupid amendment in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is no different.

The difference is Spike the 18th amendment was banning alcohol, banning anything does not work. The 18th amendment had the reverse effect than what was intended, alcoholism actually increased and led to the rise of the Mafia and organised crime. The 18th amendment was the result of a bunch of self righteous old biddies with time on their hands.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as well as local laws giving people the right to defend themselves, like the "Stand your ground law," and the "Make my day law" in Oklahoma. Self defence is a human right, and self defence by any means including a firearm should also be a human right. If a criminal breaks into some ones home and gets shot dead, who's fault is that? The home owner or the criminal?

 

[senojekips]

A

The difference is Spike the 18th amendment was banning alcohol, banning anything does not work.

The point I was making, was against the case made by the clown in the video, who was speaking as if the fact that he had Rights under the 2nd Amendment made it impossible to be changed. My point being that Amendments are not cast in stone and they can be altered for the good of the nation. Like the 18th Amendment was.

 

[BritinBritain]

The point I was making, was against the case made by the clown in the video, who was speaking as if the fact that he had Rights under the 2nd Amendment made it impossible to be changed. My point being that Amendments are not cast in stone and they can be altered for the good of the nation. Like the 18th Amendment was.

Not being an American, I'm not sure how it could be changed, perhaps its time to clamp down even harder on criminals. Singapore has the right idea with drug mules and drug dealers, string the buggers up. I wouldn't mind betting a high number of gun deaths is down the gang bangers shooting each other over drugs and turf, perhaps clamping down harder on drugs would reduce not only gun crime, but other crimes.

Illegal drugs is a multi billion dollar industry and the present middle of the road approach used by the US or the UK for that matter doesn't work, either go for one extreme or the other, either make drugs legal, or execute drug mules and dealers.

 

[senojekips]

Don't even get me started on drugs.

Firearms are but a drop in the ocean when compared with the misery and death caused by drugs, their manufacture, distribution and use.

Any trafficker with video evidence of them clearly selling drugs should be executed by the quickest and cheapest means (an overdose of their own product would be appropriate I think) within 24 hours of having fronted a judge and the evidence corroborated. All their possessions and those of anyone who could reasonably be shown to have benefited from the offence should be forfeit.

 

[BritinBritain]

And how much gun crime is actually linked to drugs? I'd suggest quite a bit.

Perhaps coming down even harder on drug dealers and traffickers such as the death penalty, would reduce gun crime.

 

[mmarsh]

My argument fails on the grounds that it is POSSIBLE to scale up? The keyword is possible. You can say it is possible for NATO to win in Afghanistan, You can say it is possible to accomplish anything. What you say is possible DOES NOT mean it will succeed.

As Britinafrica has pointed out your figures are wrong, and even if they were correct, if you do the math correctly, The USA has OVER 4 TIMES the amount of people in your exaggerated statement, and 3 TIMES that amount of firearms. Please tell me how your are going to institute a UK style firearms ban on that kind of population? Oh and if you figure out a way to placate hundreds of millions of angry Americans who enjoy the privilege of owning firearms please tell me.



Yes loopholes in private sales laws, those loopholes that I agree should be closed, as for given to criminals? If you actually knew what you were talking about, many criminals obtain legally purchased firearms by STEALING them from law abiding citizens. I.E. Sandy hook massacre, mentally unstable man killed his own mother and other innocent people and STOLE their firearms.

That's a popular misconception but its incorrect, Monty is right on this score. Most guns used in crime are in fact bought legally. According to this ATF report done in 1994.

1. The Most common guns used by criminals in US are bought legally in straw purchases. I.E. people with no criminal record buying guns on behalf of criminals.

2. The second most common method is through dishonest gun dealers, most commonly legally licensed dealers working from home. These rogue dealers only represent 8% of all licensed dealers, but unfortunately they do exist. You might recall a big ATF arrest a few months ago of a dealer in AZ who was supplying Mexican Drug Cartels with the large majority of the assault rifles used in the ongoing war with the Mexican police.

3. The study showed that only 10-15% of guns used by criminals are in fact stolen.


Article here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

I take a moderate position on guns, I oppose a ban (except on extended magazines) but recognize that are some very serious problems with the distribution of guns. Its far too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get legally purchased firearms.