Guns Rule In This Cowboy Town

[Prakanong2005]

For instance, airsoft rifles (not air-rifles) fire small super-light-weight plastic bullets that cannot kill anyone, no matter how much you try. Air-rifles fire 4.5mm or 5.5mm metal BBs can can hurt people (for instance, cause someone to go blind), but if they are under the legal limit they cannot kill an adult.

They can not kill an adult but make him blind? GREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

What about kids? If I fully understand your statement, I have to conclude :

1) they can kill a kid or a baby.

2) both kid and/or baby do not count, count less than a responsible and mature adult who is playing John Wayne with a gun, and eventually goes so crazed he start to shoot the landowner of the farm where he is hunting ( mmmmmmmm .... seems I have read something like that in bangkok post, related to someone whith an important governemental post in some remote country. ... I do not remenber well, Rhumsomething?)

No, they cannot even kill a baby, unless it's a 2 day newborn that is lieing down and a person tries to shoot it in the soft area of the top of the head from point blank range, then _perhaps_ in _theory_. Also remember that a pingpong-ball can damage the brain if hitting here at this stage...

How rediciolus low should we go with 'safety'?

I say, ban ping pong balls.

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

i am sorry but in the UK reason has prevailed and all the nutters and loony's who want guns are out on their arse - its called democracy and will of the people.

I would love to see a study and the correlation between the wannabee gun holders (of hanguns, and other designed for human killing guns) in the UK and nonces - Hamilton and Ryan would make fine candidates!

These figures look fine to me

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

Edited April 8, 2006 by Prakanong2005

[Prakanong2005]

The law is going to be passed through the house soon and only some conservatives have scrambled to the defence of for example air-rifles (BB-guns, for you americans).

And again, these are items with zero attributed deaths.

You are seriously under educated, If you dont know about something dont act as if you do.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5032596.shtml

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1865822005

http://icteesside.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news...-name_page.html

You beat me to posting about that one!

Some more facts regarding the UK - imitation and air guns are being used to commit crimes

Gun Crime in Great Britain

The official figures for gun crime in England and Wales in 2002/03 were announced in January 2004. There were a total of 24,070 firearm offences of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons, the highest number of offences ever. The largest increase in offences was seen with imitation firearms for which there was an annual increase of 46% to 1815 offences.

The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.

Criminal statistics England and Wales 2002/2003. Supplementary Volume 1. Homicide and Gun Crime (edited by David Povey). National Statistics. January 2004

Recorded Crimes and Offences involving Firearms, Scotland, 2003. Scottish Executive National Statistical Bulletin. October 2004

[chuchok]

Crumbs TAWP, Prakanong2005 has come up with some interesting stats about England.

Edited April 8, 2006 by chuchok

[ColPyat]

But it's not because the moron at the corner of the street have a colt that I have to have a shotgun, it will give nothing good.

Agreed.

Arming myself will only contribute to the escalation of violence.

[Jersey_UK]

Arming myself will only contribute to the escalation of violence.

.................i've just bought a tank.

And I polish it every 3 days, whether it needs it or not

[Prakanong2005]

Arming myself will only contribute to the escalation of violence.

.................i've just bought a tank.

And I polish it every 3 days, whether it needs it or not

And I am negotiating with Russia over some unrequired ICBM's - the outlaw on the corner might have one and I do not want walk metaphorically naked past him!

And no adults killed with airguns???

Tawp really need to get his facts right.

"

A man is on trial for manslaughter after he shot and killed a friend with an air rifle in his flat in Castleford (Yorkshire Post, 8 March 2005). Giving evidence one witness, a friend of both men, said:

"We would go hunting with air rifles and dogs. I have seen lots of people aim a gun at somebody and pull the trigger. It is messing about because you know it is not loaded."

Outside of the Uk I am only really interested in gun control as an academic exercise ie is there a correlation between gun control and lower gun murder rate etc but within the UK I am happy the debate over handguns and non-sporting guns has been won and put to bed.

I see nothing wrong with shotguns and certain rifles for sporting use and use by farmers and landowners - why any nutter ever thought having a kalishnikov type gun in the hands of a socially inadequate nonce like Michael Ryan or a handgun in the hands of a socially inadequate nonce like Thomas Hamilton was a good thing I will never know.

I am glad reason and good sense has prevailed within the UK where I vote - for other nations states its up to them.

[sting01]

I do not want to push the discussion on US against EU, nor speak about J.Wayne policy. Anyway I have a lot of admiration for J Wayne, as man and as actor. But :

1) People in this forum who had to daily cary and use a guns in their professional life seems to no LOVE thier guns, nor love the fact they could have use it. Those I knew in the past who were in that situation had the same feeling. As I have.

2) Special forces, Intervention forces, Choc forces or CRAP units, have for policy everywhere in the world to 'disqulify' people who value guns and their usage. The reason? Well often those soldiers are caught in situation that not only endanger their life, but civilian life and also diplomatically dangerous for their government. A mere cowboy will do nothing good.

3) On the long run, all who LOVED guns in my units showed as people not able to copte with the various pressure you have in those units. Those people have a tendancy to turn 'chicken' quite easily.

4) What the f*** a civilian, mostly without any military knowledge (or without any recent military knowledge) must have a gun? I mean for what reason? Because he want a gun he must have one? I want BEnz, I want her baddly (I mean Pornchita na Songkla), should have the right to rape her on the ground I want her? Civilian want gun for? Shooting? Go to fares, their are stands for shooting. Do sport, there is pistols shooting, rifle shooting, even deer hunting was olympicsport in 1904 For hunting? Yeah, sure, Chicago Illinois, or Conflans sur Seine are well reputate to be good place for hunting, it is not. I lived 20 years upcountry in france, hunting is normal, as fishing. Each familly have a gun, but : it's not a right to do so, you have to complie with several laws examination, and anyway there is more wild pigs (sangliers) than human there (really upcountry). But the hel_l someone living in urban area (to give you an idea, I call urban area a place like Kissime in Florida, have to do with a gun. It's only perverted mind who can claim they need it, on the ground if they need it , they need it and they have to have it, if not they are not free and the country is full commies rules by a conjuration of zionist (or something like that).

Basically, in USA, the fact to have a gun at home was advocated by people as P.Revere, T. JEfferson, G.Washington, and some other amongst the time. We have to understand at that time things were slightly different in the whole world when compared with now:

The only army force in the wanabe USA was the english army (Called for the Indians wars) paid by the colonists (taxes). The colonist had only militia. The fact to be able to raise militias easily (because people have guns) was helpfull to fill the rank of the troops (for the military quality I will not comment). In several occasions, it was determinant to have citizen taken spontaneously their guns and starting to fight the royalist.

But it was 2 centuries ago, UK is not attacking Maine or Virginia anymore, and France is not Protecting USA in Cheaspeake Bay anymore. So politicaly, their is no need, appart maybe the need to have extrem (both right and left) heavily armed groups as pressure tools against some defavorised people (it can be a policy, but I doubt any responsible government will do it). There is no need for a citizen to have a gun on the ground to protect his life or his familly life, there is Police for that. Or Does Police does not do it work? Does your democratically MP refuse to hear your complains about that fact? Then the problem is far deeper than gun at home, but it mean a roten society, and it's off topic.

Guns do not give freedom, guns are also not an extension or a representation of your genital. (gimme your best shoot, old song in the end of the 70 from Pat benatar). If I can not cum, I can shoot. Compensation? Frustation? Peine a jouir? Impuissant?

[ray23]

Wellt thanks guys I have now seen many views why the US is thought of as gun country. The right to having arms is a right guranteed in the constitution. Changing those laws is no easy thing. But that does not a mean that you can run around with fully auto Ak's That is illegal in every state. Most states have ristrictions on hand guns, but it is difficult to control. No criminal arrest history and you can purchase one. That still doesn't means you can walk around with it.

Some one pointed out very correctly that things have changed since the original laws were inacted. Now if I lived in a Cabin in say Alaska, I would want a good rifle and shotgun handy, But for wild animals not people. Personally I don't hunt a I have no intention of eating the food, there is no reason to kill it.

I have shot in competion matches and consider it great sport, because at the levels these guys shoot it's an art. Out of possible six hundred score many are getting 600, so the winners are named based on cm's. No one that I ever met at this matches had the John Wyane thing ( god love him) going on. They enjoyed an exacting sport, they were safe with thier guns and respected others. Trust me they would walk away if at all posssible.

The problem lies in those without experience, they don't know the mistakes that can be made and therefore more apt to make them. Even as a cop I had rule I would never carry my weapon if I was drinking, why your judgement goes down. You make a mistake with these things and people can die. Because in the end that is what they were made for killing.

A lot of the shooting statics in the states come from street gangs, something that you and I stand very little chance of being involved in, simply because if you are smart you don't hang out in those areas. Just as was pointed out about certain area of Thailand, I'm sure those places exist everywhere.A lot come from domestic disputes where booze is invloved and someone loses it just for a second at the wrong time. But knives do that pretty good to. Others accidents, training as well as good judgement and always keeping your mind on what you are doing is very important. As I mentioned I was a range Master, I recall one instance where a Lt. made an error and accidently discharged his weapon behind all of us on the shooting line. Now that was a trained individual with years of experience, but he lost it for just a second. Fortunatley no one was hurt. Then you also have intentional murder as well, if guns were not avialble I'm sure this group would find a way.

My first exposure to firearms in Thialand was is Pattaya and it was a Brit higher then a kite, brandished weapon at me over a traffic dispute. You would be surprised at how knowledgeable he became as a trafffic expert in my mind at that point. Anyway if I had a gun with me, I wouldn't have used it. Why because I could walk away, I was able to talk my way through it. That one was a big surprise to me, never expected that from a Brit, but I was wrong.

With some exception's most anywhere you can avoid these kinds of conflicts just seems a lot smarter to do that then to carry a gun around with you all the time. Trust me they become very heavy after a while and they are generally a pain in the rear.

I think as long a guns exist the debate will go on and on.

[nonthaburial]

As an ex Royal Marine I spent my military years around fire arms and that did not make me a gun freak.

I was taught from the start that "If you carry a gun you had better use it as sure as the sun comes up in the morning the other guy will" sad statement to make and justifies why in my opinion, fire arms should be totally banned and those who violate should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

For those that have experiences of the Philippines, I am sure you will agree that the overwhelming number of fire arms amongst the public is very frightening indeed. and it is because of this that the police have almost lost the battle against crime, assaults, robbery and murders.

Death by shootings in the Phils is so common that the press dont consider it news worthy and a hit man can be hired for as little as 5000 Baht.

Ban the ###### things is what I say and to those who advocate gun laws and the right to arm, I say you must have huge inferiority complexes.

[Prakanong2005]

"I was taught from the start that "If you carry a gun you had better use it as sure as the sun comes up in the morning the other guy will" sad statement to make and justifies why in my opinion, fire arms should be totally banned and those who violate should be locked up and the keys thrown away.!

Exactly - the disincentives for carrying a gun in the UK should be made much harsher.

I can not remember what it is 3 or 5 years but maybe it should be raised as an automatic sentence.

According to Steven Levitt in Freakonomics this would work ;-)

[ColPyat]

As an ex Royal Marine I spent my military years around fire arms and that did not make me a gun freak.

Seems that most ex-military, ex-police, and people who have been on a regular base around gun related violence are more than cautious in the issue of guns for all. Hmmm...

[sting01]

As an ex Royal Marine I spent my military years around fire arms and that did not make me a gun freak.

Seems that most ex-military, ex-police, and people who have been on a regular base around gun related violence are more than cautious in the issue of guns for all. Hmmm...

Well, how to explain it? LEt say Beyrouth 83. If you do not know, look at wiki. There you learn what a gun can do, in both meaning of the term. They can impress and make things smooth (open a discussion with a LARC 89mm loaded help a lot for mutual understanding, but they can also close an interresting confrontation quickly (never hear of someone who got a 5.56 mm in the brain who is able to negociate after that).

I was qualified enought to be amongst those who escorted Y. Arrafat when he left Beyrouth, but I was never ever qualified to be sure to shoot the hand who had a gun (like in a western movie). So gun are made to kill (it's not about to stop a potential agressor, my foot is enought for that, nor to immobilisate an agressor, my 2 hands are enougt for that, and other ex professional will certainly say the same, a gun is made to kill.) Wanna be a murder? Not me thanks.

People formed to carry a gun on daily basis, are selected, and mostly Rambo is NOT selected. A cop have to think about the safety of the population, a special force have to do his duty with the less colateral damage involved (if not, better to use a nuke that a squad of Royal Marines, SEAL or Kieffer Commando Marine).

Anyway, it will be always people who have fantasm bigger than their life. It's like the guy who ask a lady if she want to have sex, if she say no, he will call her 'Slut', that what is obviusly not. Same same same same.

[ColPyat]

Well, how to explain it?

No need to explain it to me - i have no military or law enforcement background, but have seen/still see/ and will see regularly gun related violence and its effects. That does somewhat turn me off guns in the hands of unqualified and unprofessional persons.

But please, do go ahead and explain it to the idiots who think that it is a god given right for any human to carry a gun. They seem to be in dire need of the real facts.

[TAWP]

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

[chuchok]

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

that's all you can say TAWPY, You get shot down in flames (Excuse the pun) and all you can do is rabbit on about some &lt;deleted&gt; that broke out of a swedish prison with a hunk of wood! Stroll on.

[TAWP]

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

that's all you can say TAWPY, You get shot down in flames (Excuse the pun) and all you can do is rabbit on about some &lt;deleted&gt; that broke out of a swedish prison with a hunk of wood! Stroll on.

Rabbit on?

It was the first time I ever mentioned it.

But thanks for playing... *sigh*

Edited April 9, 2006 by TAWP

[Prakanong2005]

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

Should we ban black paint and wood - what a silly argument in retort to the facts I posted.

What is a fact is in the Uk we have banned the guns we have due to the will of the people and not because of "Leftist" politicians.

Next you will be using the "Gun law is a Socialist ruse to take ver the country" argunemnt put oyt by the more lunatic fringe of the gun lobby.

Argue all you like but your points are absolutely piss poor in the country we are discussing here - the UK.

Sometimes the rights of the minority have to be over-ruled for the protection of the majority and that is the will of the people in the UK. We do not have a right to bear arms, do not need one and do not want one.

[TAWP]

Don't confuse target-practise with any debate regarding CCW.

And just for clarity, since the law hasn't been passed yet, how do you think they will word it? I mean, if they want to ban anything that _looks_ like a gun, who do they word it to not accidently include items they have no intention to ban but due to their apperance...

And what will the crime be if one makes a replica oneselfs. 'Unlawfull possession of an item that resembles a weapon'?

With all due respect to 'protecting the majority', but the majority isn't threatened. If you truly believe that, then, well...

Once again, the banning of handguns was said to decrease violent crime-acts. It didn't. It _increased them_. Not you are telling me that banning everything that _looks_ like a gun is going to improve the situation?

Am I the only one to see the logical fallacy?

Ps. Don't confuse any opposition to a complete ban of all guns (and lookalikes) with giving guns to everyone in the country. I'm for strict gun control in licensing. But law-abiding gun-owners are once again getting manhandled for what criminals do, that didn't follow the rules in the first place...and neither will now. Ds.

Ps2. If anyone truly want to have a rewarding debate around this subject, I'm all for it. But given the previous posts in this thread, most isn't. It's always the same BS being rehashed, about 'scared people wanting to own guns'. People automatically assume it's the US and CCW we are talking abut...? Ds.

Edited April 9, 2006 by TAWP

[Prakanong2005]

"Once again, the banning of handguns was said to decrease violent crime-acts."

Please show me the exact quote where you get this from but I think you will fail to and again it is just hysterical hyperbole for yourself to fight a losing argument.

You try to link all criminal acts of violence with gun law in a pathetic catch all.

The law was passed to prevent the likes of Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan from easily getting hold of guns designed only for the killing of humans and that the people of this country did not want another Hungerford or Dunblane.

The law's passed after Hungerford were clearly not strict enough and did not work so more draconian laws had to come into place following Dunblane.

There are two questions we must ask

Have there been any more Dunblanes or Hungerfords? - no thank Bhudda and hopefully never again

The second is hard to answer but would there have been more gun crime without them being banned?

Yes there is a gun culture among certain groups of youths in the UK - draconian dis-incentives such as mandatory 10 year jail sentences will sort this out.

[TAWP]

"Once again, the banning of handguns was said to decrease violent crime-acts."

Please show me the exact quote where you get this from but I think you will fail to and again it is just hysterical hyperbole for yourself to fight a losing argument.

You try to link all criminal acts of violence with gun law in a pathetic catch all.

The law was passed to prevent the likes of Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan from easily getting hold of guns designed only for the killing of humans and that the people of this country did not want another Hungerford or Dunblane.

The law's passed after Hungerford were clearly not strict enough and did not work so more draconian laws had to come into place following Dunblane.

There are two questions we must ask

Have there been any more Dunblanes or Hungerfords? - no thank Bhudda and hopefully never again

The second is hard to answer but would there have been more gun crime without them being banned?

Yes there is a gun culture among certain groups of youths in the UK - draconian dis-incentives such as mandatory 10 year jail sentences will sort this out.

What do you mean find the quote? You didn't follow the news several years back before the new gun-laws came into effect?

If you want distorted 'facts', check out this site: http://www.mothersagainstguns.net/

They have a history of repeatedly warping the truth to suit their own agenda and are one of the groups pushing for a full ban of even replicas.

You write 'easily getting hold of guns designed only for the killing of humans', what kind of guns are you refering too? Also, please compare those to the guns that was banned. And the ones getting banned now.

And yes, harsh penalties should be enforced on CRIMINALS that use guns (real or replicas) in any crime. That is what the laws are for.

But virtually creating 50 000 more gun-criminals via a new law isn't helping you make the streets safer. It only makes people think less of the current laws, in effect making them loose the respect they have for it.

Punish criminals, not the law-abiding.

[sting01]

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

Leftist ... so , please read what I wil wrote, or look my lips if you can :

I served my country for almost 7 years, in what is usually called 'special forces', I did operation in war time and in peace time. I used weapons, guns, knife , even crossbow. I did kill , I got order to do so. I did it with guns (easy to do), I did it also with knife (less easy because you have to see the 'other' eyes.

As I used, I learned 'de visu' how good they are (the weaponry I mean), and how inofensive they are. Well, a gun can also kill a member of your squad, can kill your second in command who is just at 5 m of you. I got that also.

Luckilly, we are not in Beyrouth, but even in Beyrouth in 83 people were looking to ripe off/destroy/trash.ban gun and asimilate. Why use a gun ? What purpose? Hunt? no problem, buy a licence and go to hunt thetiger, fine for me. For sport, so there are indeed great sportmen/women who use guns, as in olympic games (penthatlon moedern or something). To feel secure and protected??????????????????? LMAO, ROFL, LOL ... You feel secure because you in fact feel unconfortable when confrontate with others, because you do not have physical courage. I repeat, a gun will never protect you from the gansta that is in the corner of the street, it will simply make him angry, upset and he will hit your back.

Security does not mean killed all the others. Well if you are alone you will be secure, but what price did you paid. Security mean enforcing a set of laws that made people acting as human being and not like animal (John Wayne always was a Sherif and used the colt in last instance, remenber mate). Does John Wayne was a commie? Does John Wayne made propaganda movies for commies. Does Ragan did it (played a lot of sherif roles also).

You are simply affraid of yourelf lol. And mostly have no clues about what you are talking

[Prakanong2005]

Tawp

You have still not shown me the quote which says the legislation to ban giuns after the Dunblane incident was to reduce all violent crime.

It was to stop another Dunblane.

[TAWP]

Sting01>> I'm not sure you came back all right from the adventures in the army.

Please point out above where I have talked about being safe, when commenting on the banning of replicas. That has to be the opposite of feeling safe, since they can't be used for selfdefence. Their purpose is re-enactment, movies, games and so on.

So nice to have a resonable debate, no...?

Ps. It is still the left that is the hardest supporters from the house of the law. Several conservatives has voiced their oppinion on the matter. Ds.

[TAWP]

Tawp

You have still not shown me the quote which says the legislation to ban giuns after the Dunblane incident was to reduce all violent crime.

It was to stop another Dunblane.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't have all your indians in the canoe.

Please click the link I gave you. They where one of the starchest supoporters of the old banning-law. And they did indeed use the words that it was important to stop 'the killings' and reduce violent crimes [with guns]. I don't understand how you can say that any legislation to prevent murders isn't to prevent violent crimes. Is it a language thing?

For anyone wondering what 'the Dunblane incident' he is refering to is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane#The_Dunblane_Massacre

After that massacre the soccermoms got into a state of panic and thought many thousends of legal gun-owners would start going rampage in the streets, so they started pushing for the complete banning of handguns.

Sadly we all know now that the violent crimes with guns (and murder-rate with guns) have increased since this ban took effect. But never let statistics stand in the way of a good fear-session...

What we have now in the UK is stage 2 - the hunt to ban everything that _looks_ like a handgun.

On the good side, the UK will never be any threat in the shooting-competitions in the Olympics again.

[Prakanong2005]

Tawp - I think it is yourself who is a sandwich short of a picnic and not playing with the full deck.

To use the Thai term - "Mai tem teng"

Show me the quote.

The use of the word "Soccer Mums" shows your absolute ignorance of the political scene in the UK and who was behind the ban - get this thicko - the whole country wanted it with a tiny minoruty against.

"Soccer mums" bwhaaa - you are funny. Is that every mother in the UK?

As for the language thing I would brush up on yours and be more specific.

When you use statements that the law was to reduce violent crimes then mix it up with gun crimes it shows the lack of intelectual rigour going on in that brain of yours.

The facts are the will of the overwhelming majority of the people in the UK wanted these guns banned after Dunblane - not a minority of soccer mums as you so ignorantly put it without any insight whatsover and it shows.

Just where are you getting your propaganda from as its obvious any independent thought is beyond you.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Prakanong2005

[Prakanong2005]

Tawp

"On the good side, the UK will never be any threat in the shooting-competitions in the Olympics again."

You really must stop embarrasing yourself in public - your ignorance shows no bounds and its like seeing my grandad dribbling in a restaurant with his flies open.

If you can manage it just have a look at the shooting results for the recent Commonwealth Games in Australia - probably the largest sporting event outside the Olympics or "Football" world cup

[TAWP]

Prakanong2005>> Ad hominid again, how tiring.

You fail to counter any point given but go straight for personal attacks again and again.

But it's ok, since I know I have the facts on my side.

I'm sorry that english isn't my mother tounge, but your failure to grasp what I'm writing is really sad. I wrote 'violent acts with guns', and that somehow doesn't mean 'gun crimes'?

Nevermind, some facts, shall we:

The murder-rate with guns has _INCREASED_ since the ban of handguns over .22 caliber. This is widely known, and I hope you aren't disputing it.

For nstance, this nice graph will show you a curve:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/10/ngun10.xml

This clearly shows that aegrescit medendo, since criminals doesn't abide to laws - only the law-abiding turned in their guns.

But one important point was stage 2, the banning of everything that _looks_ like a gun. How come you haven't responted to that, instead of ad hominid again and again?

And I hope you didn't really miss the slight sarcasm in the last remark regarding the Olympics? But alas, you did. I guess without smailies, people are completely lost...

Here is a nice tidbit about the 2012 olympics

The 2012 Olympics

Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. However, athletes at these games complained of the terrible conditions they were subjected to. Their handguns were transported by armoured car and police convoy, they were unable to train and were forced to compete under armed guard. The government has not yet elaborated on the exact provisions to be made for the Olympic Games but something sinilar, if not identical, can be expected.

When it was announced that Britain would host the 2012 Olympic Games the media did give some attention and sympathy to the British shooting team and there was talk of handguns being re-legalized, however, the government has not spoken of this and it is highly unlikely.

I hope they aren't expecting any of the shooters to go an a murderes rampage. (Added smailie so you don't miss the sarcasm.)

[Prakanong2005]

Tawp - about the personal attacks it was you who started it with the Indians comment and you did call another poster slow so please do not get your knickers in a twist and stop being a hypocrite.

What are your figures trying to prove?

Are you trying to say there is a cause and effect between the banning of guns and rising crime in the UK - oh please.

Are you saying the banning of guns had no effect on the increase ofr gun crime - go on prove it then.

As for your pie chart - that might just go against your ill defined arguments in that the handguns might just be modified imitations etc so you may have just shot yourself in the foot with that one - pun intended.

Oh and you seem to be using some older statistics but then again you would not do that on purpose would you ;-)

Take a look at this site from the BBC with more up to date figures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

Pay particilar heed to the statistics regarding numberso of murders and attmepted murders by guns in London.

The downward trend in attempted is obvious and while miurders peeked they were reduced massively the following year.

You might want to look at the facts as well

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

Violent crime down 43% from 1995 and 2004/2005 but stranger violence is now the highest component at 35% which is not good.

If you look at page 75 table 3.4 you will see that the trend in handgun crime is down but still too high.

Please tak a look at the pie chart on the page 74 - I am sure you only used the figures above in your pie chart as you could not find the latst published and were in no way to mislead and support your argument with lower figures.

Imitation gun crime is rising though so that would support a ban - why would any sane normal person want one?

As for banning of anything that looks like a gun - why do you think U should respond to that - I have not even thought about it but it seems to be a bee in your bonnet - a sort of last stand in a losing battle.

The facts are as I will re-iterate them again

The majority of people in the UK want guns of the type we are discussing banned ie hand guns and the weapons banned in the act of Parliament in 88 and amendend after Dunblane

I am seriously waiting for you to put together a coherent argument that allowing the type of guns banned in 88 and 97 would lower violent or gun crime in the UK

[ColPyat]

This clearly shows that aegrescit medendo, since criminals doesn't abide to laws - only the law-abiding turned in their guns.

Well, yeah, espcieally if you fail to read the small print of the article you yourself have provided, which states:

"Home office statisticians say the increase in crimes recorded by police is partly due to changes in counting rules and that when changes are taken into account, the true increase in total recorded crime is actually 2%"

Hmmm...doesn't sound very alarming.

It is pure conjecture to base the rise in gun related crime on the firearms act. There are lots of other factors that should be taken into account in order to assess the situation.

Nevertheless, the UK has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, especially gun related murder rates, far lower than the one of the US, or South Africa, or Thailand for example. No reason for panic.

[Prakanong2005]

"It is pure conjecture to base the rise in gun related crime on the firearms act. There are lots of other factors that should be taken into account in order to assess the situation."

In fact I am willing to bet a testicle the firearms Act in the UK, both 88 and its 97 amendement, has absolutely no causal affect whatsoever on the rise on gun related crime in the UK.

Tawp can not grasp the difference between correlation and cause

There was a correlation between Terry Wogan being on the radio rush hour and there being traffic jams but he did not cause them.