England Used to Be a Country of Men

How do these laws 'persecute' responsible firearm owners while not persecuting armed criminals? Where's the problem? Would you want to let a child handle a lethal weapon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

 

Children as young as six can hunt in some US states and the armed cops around here still present a far greater danger.

 

Your country will never fail to amaze me. Children as young as six have fun at the petting zoo in mine:

 

That's because most of the Western world hasn't had a "frontier" in hundreds of years. Up until 1900 many Americans were still wearing animal skins. These links to the cultural past of the pioneers and survival skills such as hunting, trapping, shooting are still important parts of our culture that we preserve through sports we pass on to our children.

I don't see why that is such an affront. I wouldn't downgrade a Welshman with an enthusiasm for the Long Bow teaching his 6 year old how to shoot the bow.

 

The Welsh also enjoy the livestock.

(only a joke)

 

Yeah, it amazes me we allow cops to have guns too.

 

Freedom without Social order isn't Freedom, it's anarchy. Without a strong "police state" as you define it, American society simply could not function. We would have "London Riots" every day. Why don't you understand that? Our society itself is no longer capable of the discipline necessary for self-governing to the level of our Forefathers, and the only reason our cops have guns is becuase the criminals have guns.

 

I don't understand it, so I guess you'll just have to explain it over and over and over again. I find that the more you explain it, the more the criminality inherent in the state is revealed in your words.

Of course, I was merely jesting above. Of course cops should be allowed to have guns. EVERYONE should be allowed to have guns, including six year olds.

But what gets my gall is how the gun grabbers whine about guns, even as they approve of the state's enforcers wielding guns and indeed expect them to USE those guns to steal everyone else's guns. Proving that every word they utter about how bad guns are is a disgusting lie. In reality, they ADORE guns. They just want the state they worship to monopolize all the guns.

 

My, my, my. You seem to have forgotten your own posts:

YOU were the one who fixated on the Americans - and was busted for it. Why? Remember this post of yours?

No "WUMPS" here...just a WIMP:



Pretty sad when you can't even remember your own posts...

 

Yes there is some crime, and I have been to areas where gangs operate, but I still wouldn't want to carry a gun all the time. If you are known to carry a gun, and you get on the wrong side of someone, they can just shoot you by surprise in case you decide to shoot them. I actually got stopped by gangsters at the end of one of the most notorious roads in Britain, but I was unharmed. I was visiting someone who lived on a road which has a famous gang named after it. The people I visited never carried guns, wouldn't dream of it, even though the gangsters did.

It was not a case of overthrowing regimes, read up and learn about it. In Indonesia a million civilians were murdered by General Suharto with the help of Britain and America. They were innocent defenceless civilians. In Chile they had a left wing government and it was crushed by General Pinochet who again slaughtered thousands of civilians.

So, no, I dont advocate disarming people. I am just saying that I would not want to see widespread arming of the British population at the moment, I dont think it would cut crime, and I dont think there is evidence that it cuts crime in America. I doubt most Americans walk round with a gun all the time.

I dunno about Australia. I could imagine maybe some farmer in the middle of nowhere wanting a gun, but my uncle lives there and he has never complained about not being allowed to buy a gun.

 

"Where's the problem? Would you want to let a child handle a lethal weapon?"
Where did you get such a weird idea?

Your knowledge of this subject is obviously limited to Wikipedia. FYI, I had to hand in my pistols, and license, because illness prevented the compliance with the demand for the quota of COMPULSORY registered shoots needed to maintain the license, after 34yrs of completely clean record.

Creeps and bullies hate to see anyone else armed.

 

It's too bad the populace didn't overthrow them using guns.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that having one group of people use guns to steal everyone else's guns doesn't mean NO GUNS. It just means that the guns are monopolized by aggressive people, both states and private criminals, while their victims have no guns.

The only equitable possibilities are NO ONE having guns (including cops, soldiers) or EVERYONE having them. Since the former is impossible that only leaves the latter. But having just SOME people wield guns over the rest of them is the way of despots.

 

I saw my mate the other day worried about letting an 11 years old carry a hot kettle.

Six year olds with guns??!!

 

An armed populace is harder to abuse than a country of lambs.

 

"Six year olds with guns??!!"
What is your point, if not simply to inject silliness into the discussion?

 

It's that attitude that infantilizes people, so that they're unable to take care of themselves as adults, leading to the Stockholm mentality of the European citizenry.

The purpose of parenting is to help show you children how to be adults. Overprotecting them is abusive.

 

You dont think it silly to arm 6 year olds?

Well, it was a camping kettle so I don't think the handle was as well insulated as a normal one, and the kid had to carry it across a field, so the parent was just saying to be careful. Especially as the kid has a bit of an obsession with water.

Kids are not adults.

 

Obviously silly for children to handle firearms unsupervised, equally as silly to use the idea as part of a debate.

 

I wonder if gun ownership is the reason we had no violence and very little looting here in Bama after the tornadoes...just a few copper thieves.

 

That picture in the OP is like the quintessential essence of modern western culture.

 

What are you on about? Cameron has no idea what is going on...no one has. Because the facts are nowhere near to being in on this yet.

They must immediately stop the violence and instill order, but other than that noone should be judging or acting, if they do, it is without accurate information on the demographics of the rioters and totally without any real insight into why the riots took place. All we would be acting on at the moment are assumptions. Those have already proven wrong on several counts. Let's face it, here on other threads when experienced Media said Norway bomb might be a certain type of terrorist, it actually wasn't. Here, many jumped to the conclusion these rioters are unemployed etc, they aren't. Some said it's racial. It isn't. And now some assert they were purely greed motivated... we do not know that. It's a current theory, but the work hasn't been done to establish the truth.

It is worrying that politicians jump about like prawns on a hotplate, making ill informed comments, getting involved in public titfers with the Police and furthering inequality in law by evicting families from Council Housing because one of them was caught in the riots. How is that fair and equal justice? A caught rioter who is employed with his own house is only punished by the justice system. If you happen to be a genuinely struggling poor family whose teenager is caught up in the riots, you lose your home and community because of a stupid spur of the minute kid's action.

The biggest risk here is how people are babbling as if they know why people acted. None of us knows yet. That work hasn't been done. They haven't established why people acted. They don't even have the demographics of who acted and that will take time, because it's not clear cut...for example those who were caught are not likely to be the habitual criminals engaging in the act of looting JD Sports, they are more likely to be first time offenders, so even when the figures are in those people will give some insight but it will require further analysis and hard work in communities before any real picture can even start to emerge. Then the work should be done on how to respond.

Before anyone makes any kind of criticism, I'd want to know all of those things. There is no point in just deploying some hard line based on uninformed assumptions. We need to KNOW as much as possible first. The politicians should shut up until they have done that work and can evidence what they are saying. Then they might have a chance of taking effective action. Of course they are currently only worrying about how they look.

I realise some of the posters here are master baiters and some are "limited", but even you must have noticed the rioters fighting on the streets of England.

Fighting.

In England.

They were fighting. As stupid men do.

Oh is it? The pictures we're seeing here are of a continual stream of looters being processed by the justice system. Because that picture is nothing like the essence of modern western culture.

 

No Viv...the politicians should FIRST stop the rioting & looting as quickly as possible...to protect the good people & their property from the thugs.

Later on you can dwell on the reasons.

DUH!

 

I just said that. It's an idea to read posts before responding. I realise there may be a short attention span going on, but it was only in line one of the second paragraph.

Do you have any scintillating insights into the remainder of the post, or is it just too long for you to manage?

 

I'd be grateful if Americans would kindly stop saying 'Brits' (which means, as I suppose, 'British people', put offensively) when they are talking about England, the part of Britain where the rioting and looting occured, and the only bit where the tories are in a majority.

 

Did you read your own blathering post?

More pandering to the thugs...

And you wonder why England has devolved to this:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14461868?ref=nf