• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun controll?

Please Rolfe these people also wanted to save all the hounds... since the moment the ban went into affect they would all have to shot (funny how they never mentioned how there never seems to be that many old pack hounds...). Also don't forget they wanted to save the rural economy which would collapse once the ban was passed as hunting with dogs was the only thing keeping the countryside going.

This is why the whole of the UK countryside is nowadays completely uninhabited and we all live in cities and towns and no one now dares venture out into the countryside now overrun overrun by packs of foxes.


Sorry, I meant to acknowledge this.

Too right. So obviously the hordes of people on horses following packs of dogs following pre-prepared aniseed trails are a total illusion. Like, they couldn't possibly be the same people and horses and dogs that were chasong the foxes, could they? Because we all know these horses and dogs must have been shot, yes?

And the fact that the hordes of people chasing the aniseed are significantly larger than the hordes of people who used to chase the foxes is entirely down to solidarity being shown with the poor beleaguered country folk, and an expression of condemnation of the ban. Nothing at all to do with a lot of people who enjoy riding their horses over open countryside but do not enjoy watching foxes torn to pieces happily joining in once the latter was no longer part of the day's activities. Of course not.

I must watch this damn video. Did someone actually imply that the NRA was behind it? Dishonest or what?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
I support gun control for the sole purpose of preventing people from shooting themselves once they noticed there's a new thread about gun control.

I'm very curious about one thing though; why will you not answer my question regarding Fagin's and your rather large assumption that you know the minds of all (or nearly all) UK citizens on the following issue: Whether, if faced with deadly force in one's own home, using a gun in self-defense is justified, excused, etc. Fagin's position is that no person who is not some sort of law enforcement officer ever has that right, and from what I've read you agree with him. I think you might both also go as far to say that no ordinary non-law enforcement type has the right to use any type of deadly force if faced with deadly force in the home (sort of makes me wonder why carve out an exception for law enforcement?)
Maybe I missed something, but weren't fargin and Rolfe opposed to owning weapons for the purpose of self-defence rather than using them? I don't recall anyone disputing that if your life is threatened and you get your hands on a gun, you may protect your life with deadly force. Only that you should not be keeping a gun in the first place. And I'm not nitpicking here, as I see it - there is a huge difference.
 
I support gun control for the sole purpose of preventing people from shooting themselves once they noticed there's a new thread about gun control.


Maybe I missed something, but weren't fargin and Rolfe opposed to owning weapons for the purpose of self-defence rather than using them? I don't recall anyone disputing that if your life is threatened and you get your hands on a gun, you may protect your life with deadly force. Only that you should not be keeping a gun in the first place. And I'm not nitpicking here, as I see it - there is a huge difference.

You have to read a few pages back. Fagin was of the opinion that use of a gun in self-defense in the home against deadly force was not justifiable/excusable/etc. Rolfe agreed with him. They both claimed that all UK citizens (everybody in the UK basically) agreed with them. If I am wrong in this Rolfe/Fagin, please correct me.
 
Sorry, I meant to acknowledge this.

Too right. So obviously the hordes of people on horses following packs of dogs following pre-prepared aniseed trails are a total illusion. Like, they couldn't possibly be the same people and horses and dogs that were chasong the foxes, could they? Because we all know these horses and dogs must have been shot, yes?

And the fact that the hordes of people chasing the aniseed are significantly larger than the hordes of people who used to chase the foxes is entirely down to solidarity being shown with the poor
beleaguered
country folk, and an expression of condemnation of the ban. Nothing at all to do with a lot of people who enjoy riding their horses over open countryside but do not enjoy watching foxes torn to pieces happily joining in once the latter was no longer part of the day's activities. Of course not.

I must watch this damn video. Did someone actually imply that the NRA was behind it? Dishonest or what?

Rolfe.
Maybe they meant the IRA (IRS, whatever!)
 
And what if the one attacking your home is wearing armor and a badge? What if the government starts rounding up your family to be killed? (Yeah, I'm getting paranoid again. Stupid zeitgeist.) Without adequate protection, the government could just walk all over us.


If there was an armed (read: terrorist) uprising against the elected government of the United States, would you be on the side of the terrorists or the government? Would your average NRA member side with the terrorists or the government? Would your flag-waving, rabidly patriotic gun-owning friends support the terrorists, or the government?

Think about what you're saying. You;re supporting armed rebellion against the democratically elected government of your country. That's what the 2nd Amendment requires of you. Are you willing to do that? Is the average patriotic American gun owner willing to do that?
 
Last edited:
You have to read a few pages back. Fagin was of the opinion that use of a gun in self-defense in the home against deadly force was not justifiable/excusable/etc. Rolfe agreed with him. They both claimed that all UK citizens (everybody in the UK basically) agreed with them. If I am wrong in this Rolfe/Fagin, please correct me.
I have read the entire thread, otherwise I wouldn't be asking. Obviously I got a different impression than you did. Where exactly did they express these opinions? I still believe it is a misunderstanding.
 
I support gun control for the sole purpose of preventing people from shooting themselves once they noticed there's a new thread about gun control.


Maybe I missed something, but weren't fargin and Rolfe opposed to owning weapons for the purpose of self-defence rather than using them? I don't recall anyone disputing that if your life is threatened and you get your hands on a gun, you may protect your life with deadly force. Only that you should not be keeping a gun in the first place. And I'm not nitpicking here, as I see it - there is a huge difference.

I just re-read the posts myself and see that I made a mistake there. Rolfe/Fargin were against the ownership of a gun for purposes of self-defense in the home generally. Neither answered whether actual use of deadly force (gun or otherwise) was justified in the case of an attack in the home. Both, however, claimed that basically all UK citizens agreed that people should not own guns for purposes of self-defense in the home. Fargin admitted that he had no stats to back up this assumption, but it appears Rolfe has not. Sorry, I'm missing postings here and posting twice because the site was incredibly slow today for some reason. I think this is an accurate summary of where it left of wouldn't you say Rolfe?
 
Speaking of the NRA and rhetoric....

Ted Nugent.

Is this guy really a representative of American gun culture ? When I watch his "Ted Nugent Goes Off On Obama And Hillary! " video on Youtube the term "gun nut" springs instantly to mind.
 
Well Rolfe, appreciate your comments. It's nice that you live in a neighborhood free from crime and violent threats. I wonder if most of the rest of the world is the same way? Meanwhile, nothing you said above overcomes the simple fact that a home alarm system, while a possible deterrent, cannot physically prevent you from being killed in your own home in the event of (what is in YOUR neighborhood) an extremely rare home invasion. I'm very curious about one thing though; why will you not answer my question regarding Fagin's and your rather large assumption that you know the minds of all (or nearly all) UK citizens on the following issue: Whether, if faced with deadly force in one's own home, using a gun in self-defense is justified, excused, etc. Fagin's position is that no person who is not some sort of law enforcement officer ever has that right, and from what I've read you agree with him. I think you might both also go as far to say that no ordinary non-law enforcement type has the right to use any type of deadly force if faced with deadly force in the home (sort of makes me wonder why carve out an exception for law enforcement?) Furthermore, you have both claimed that all UK citizens believe this. Why not answer to that with the actual proof of the opinions of all UK citizens, or are we avoiding have to offer the proof now for our personal perceptions of how we want others to think? Sounds to me like someone looking for an excuse to justify a position without any evidence of the thing claimed.


Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Where did I ever say I thought any of what I said applied to "the rest of the world"? This thread is about the gun situation in Britain, where I happen to live. Not about what you think you have to do in America, for whatever reasons.

I'm having trouble reading and understanding that diatribe the more it continues, but here goes.

I do not believe that anyone should have the right to keep a gun in the house for the purpose of self-defence. For one thing, it escalates the arms race, for another it allows guns to get into so many people's hands that it's inevitable some people who really shouldn't be within half a mile of a firearm will get hold of one (and this includes young children), and for another, the presence of guns is yet one more incentive to burglars to get into a house. But mainly because I don't want to live in a society where deadly weapons are everywhere - especially the more I read about how it is in the USA.

However, you may have noted that I referred to the Tony Martin case. He was a farmer who had a shotgun, as many farmers do. The court was perfectly clear that if the gun had been properly stored, and he had got his hands on it and used it to shoot a burglar who was actively attacking him, he would have been acquitted. This is on the same level as getting your hands on a cricket bat in similar circumstances and braining the attacker with it. In that situation, the use of "proportionate force" is allowed and I have no problem with it.

So what the blazes does this have to do with the subject of the thread anyway? You've been told time and time again how it is in this country, to support the evident fact that Jonathan has seen a video which is a pack of lies. That's it.

So you choose to disbelieve every Brit on this forum who tries to explain to you that the "right to bear arms" is right up there with the right to swing naked from Nelson's Column in January in public priorities. And you choose to lecture us about how we ought to copy your rampant paranoia and get all terrified about the possibility that someone might break into our houses while we're in there. Thanks, but I'll pass on that one.

You're now demanding "proof" as regards public attitudes to firearms. A bit difficult to point to a huge opinion survey when there has been no such survey. And why might that be? Opinion pollsters ask people about all sorts of things all the time. But somehow, there is no record of any poll on whether people should be allowed to keep loaded guns "under their butt-cheeks" in bed. Now why might that be, do you think? Maybe because the idea never even occurs to anyone?

I've already explained that we have plenty rabid right-wing tabloids that aren't in the least bit shy of promoting any populist crazy stuff they think will sell papers. If there was any demand at all for the right to carry or keep guns for personal protection, these guys would be on the bandwagon before you could say Murdoch Press. Not a syllable.

I mentioned Tony Martin. At the time of his trial, these rags were in full flight about the right of the homeowner to defend his property. But not a single word of any demand that everyone should have a gun to hand. (It was firmly pointed out to them that the Great British Public already had all the rights they were demanding, as regards the use of proportionate force. Martin's problem was that he had shown premeditation, and that he shot and killed a man who was running away from him.)

This was a huge issue at the time. Everybody and his dog was discussing it. Every TV pundit and every newspaper had their say. And yet, strangely, not a single voice raised suggesting that we all ought to have guns in our bedrooms. Not one.

So how about you show me the tiniest bit of evidence that I'm wrong, even the slightest hint of a group of people in this country, however tiny, who believe we ought to have that right? There are lots of British posters in the forum, from all over the country. We represent many different strata of society. We often fight like ferrets in a sack. See if you can find even one person who is prepared to state that there is any public demand for "the right to bear arms" in this country.

Rolfe.

PS. The finding of one or two nutters doesn't count, even if they're not called Michael Ryan. That's not what we mean, and well you know it.
 
Last edited:
So what is the percentage of people in the UK who are "farmers, gamekeepers, hunters", and who want one for "sport"? I'd guess less than 10%. For the other 90% guns are banned, yes?

That really is stretching the word 'banned' well beyond any recognition.
 
That really is stretching the word 'banned' well beyond any recognition.


Indeed. Wildcat, you do realise that "wanting a gun for sport" can be anyone, don't you? I'm not "banned" from owning a gun. I just don't happen to want one for sport. There is a difference.

Rolfe.
 
So please, Jonathan. I'm getting curious. What was it about the film that "destroyed a wonderful summer"? Why are you "haunted for life" by it? Were you really so invested in the British upper classes' right to ride their horses after a pack of dogs, chasing a fox that they wanted to see ripped to pieces, that the legislation to ban that activity has done this to you? I'm quite confused here.

Well... Where do I begin?

For 3 years, I had been struggling with a severe issue with my faith in Christianity. Towards the end of the whole ordeal I was growing so frustrated, sad, scared and angry, that I was beginning to curse and hit stuff. I think I might have even said a few times that I hated God. I noticed this and it was scaring me and I didn't want to go down that path. I tried praying and it seemed to help, but in reality, it was just a temporary placebo effect. I vowed that every time the issue began to worry me, I would pray. It grew less and less effective each time. One day, I was talking to an atheist on AIM about it and he kept telling me how Christianity was ********, but, being a Christian, I refused to believe it. However, I was in a weakened state and he pointed out the verse where Moses Commands his men to kill the Medianites and kill all the boys and women and men, but spare the young girls to keep as sex slaves. I was speechlessly appalled and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. My God was cruel and oppressive and evil. How could this be? How could he treat people like this? The truth then became obvious to me: That this wasn't a book inspired by God. It was the ONLY thing that made sense of the issue I had. It was the only thing that made the bible make sense: It was a fairy tale written by ignorant Bronze Age men. That night, my world-view massively shaken up, I went to bed thinking "Okay... This is all a dream... None of it is real... When I wake up, Everything will be alright and I'll be in paradise again." I immediately created my own realm in my own head where I had all of my hearts desires. I figured that this world was just an illusion and that none of the people in it were real. I awoke the next day thinking about what had happened the previous night. I re-thought my fantasy world and realized that it was an emergency defense mechanism to cling to until I could start thinking about things more clearly. I then said to myself "Okay, that's it! I am now 100% neutral on the grounds of religion!" I said "God, if you love me, you'll let me go and think about what to do and if I die during that time, you won't hold it against me for not being sure!" It was an unbelievably refreshing feeling! It was like living in a crowded house for so long and taking everything outside and putting each item back one by one and making it more livable. However, I was also terrified that I was going to thrown in hell for my disbelie and "idolatry". But I said to God "Look, you're making this VERY difficult for me to actually believe in you! I'm extremely confused right now, so here's the deal: Don't let Satan influence me. Show me the right path. Show me your wisdom. If Christianity is right, then please lead me back to it! If not, let me go! Please do it within a week!" And a week passed... Nothing happened... I was still a bit scared of hell, but it slowly subsided. This was such a wonderful time for me. It was Spring-time, it was sunny, the birds were singing, the flowers were blooming, and for the first time in a long time, I didn't have chains wrapped around my soul... I could now start looking at religions... Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism... I really felt compelled to worship a female deity and now that the monster called Yahweh was out of my life, I had freedom to do that... I also enjoyed listening to Brett-Keane on youtube, even though I didn't agree with his views on gods and death. His voice... I'll always remember his voice... Sadly, shortly after I subscribed to him, his account was suspended... I remember waking up early every morning to watch the beautiful sunrise and hear the birds sing. I remember the morning I would wake up to find it raining and I would open the balcony to see everything look so green and alive as well as the serene sound of the rain and the stream flowing and the smell of the fresh air... This was paradise... Right in my own yard... I remember the huge grin that I got on my face when I realized "Hey... I'm allowed to have sex before marriage now!!!" I also remember watching a new anime called Love Hina. It gave me hope of finding a girlfriend because if a guy like Keitaro could get someone like Naru, so could I! On July 1st, Canada day, I remember watching the fireworks outside the Chinese restaurant where I work... I remember how I stood next to my employer's cute niece who was visiting from China... It was the closest thing to a date I ever had. Standing next to a cute girl and watching the beautiful colours burst in the sky... It gave me an incredible feeling of peace and serenity. However, during the time, I was starting to feel troubled by the notion of death as well as the concept of the end of the universe. Though, the amount of peace I felt allowed me to easily tune it out. I also looked forward to moving out and getting my own place... The future never looked as optimistic as it did at this point...

It was about half way or so through watching the Love Hina series that it all went wrong. Little did I know was that just as my happiness was at it's hight and my joy at it's zenith, an atomic **** bomb was about to explode with diarrhea all over my experience... It was in the early part of July... I think about the 3rd or 4th that I got a PM on my youtube from UnderlinedSociety saying "Hey, I think I found a video that you'll love!" I click on it and it's a video about religion... Talks about how Jesus was supposedly plagiarized from previous messiahs and how it was all about Sun Worship. Obviously, I loved it. But realizing it was only part one... I wanted to see more... I sent it to various people and asked what it was called... "Zeitgeist" one of the said. So, I typed it in on Google Video and sure enough, there was parts 2 and 3... Part 2 opened up with footage of 9/11. I first assumed "Oh, this must be talking about what religion drives people to do!" Instead, it slowly and incrementally crept up on me in perfect brainwashing fashion: "9/11 was an inside job!". When I saw it, I was outraged! "What ELSE are they doing behind out backs?!" I asked. I was ready to take action and get the truth out there! Then, came part 3 talking about the so called "Income tax scam." That too, outraged me! But this was nothing compared to the damage that was about to happen to my mind next: The one world government. And even more terrifying... The RFID "tracking" chip. As you can imagine... I was terrified... Infact... I was so terrified, I could barely move... I just laid on my bed, with my digits as cold as ice, despite the hot and sweaty day. I managed to go to work that night, but I was just scared stiff... I even wondered to myself if my boss's niece had been suckered into getting that demonic chip put into her hand... When I went to sleep that night, I remember that even in my dreams, I felt an incredible terror... I dreamed I was playing some sort of game of tetris, the whole time, terrified. So much so, that I woke up screaming. That night, I went into the new restaurant which opened up... And I will always have bad memories whenever I go into that place... I remember watching all the people... All the ignorant people oblivious to their impending oppression. I felt so sorry for each one of them... I remember sitting there in fear... Eating my unflavored cheesecake in the burgundy, lowly lit room... In my head rang what Kaiser Dragon from Final Fantasy 6 Advance tells the party when you finally reach him: "Humans and your insatiable greed! Your lust for power always leads to a lust for blood!" I had heard the whole RFID chip thing before on a Christian video on youtube about how the chip was the "Mark of the beast", but that was when I was a Christian, and I didn't care then because I was worrying about the other issue instead. But since I saw this, I was reminded of it and wondering "Oh no... Could the bible be true after-all? Is this revelations coming true?" which prompted me to read the entire book of revelation... It was incredibly vague and figured "Eh, it's too vague to tell." I thought to myself "I can't just let this happen! I have to try to stop it!" And to do this, I thought I would dress up as a ninja to cover my hair, wear gloves to stop them to getting fingerprints, use a computer with a voice synthesizer to speak while handing out pamphlets I made about the New World Order, with website links on it which would include my own anonymous website. I would inform everybody I possibly could about what was going on... Fortunately, before I could get that far, my friend on the internet told me how ******* the whole idea was, and how retarded the conspiracy theories were. However, it look a long time for me to recover. The beauty in the world I had seen before I watched the movie had been tarnished by irrational fear. Infact, for a long time, I couldn't even look at a credit card without my stomach turning. Or even just good old cash for that matter. However, my friend helped me through the rough patches, and then, about a month ago, I came upon this forum, which is like an Oasis in a vast desert. Thanks to this forum, I have healed significantly.

So, no, it has nothing to do with Fox Hunting. I think animals should be left alone as much as possible. I think people shouldn't have pets if they intend to keep them trapped in a small yard or indoors and neuter them. I know that I wouldn't want to be neutered if a superior species were to capture us and make us slaves or pets. I can't even look at pictures of animal cruelty and I think whoever engaging in torturing animals is a sick **** who's seed should be wiped from the earth. And before I watched the movie, I didn't give 2 ***** about guns. I didn't, and still don't like the loud noise of guns. I like swords and cross-bows better. But now that I've seen it, I'm terrified of being tracked everywhere I go and having to ask the government what I can and can't do, including sex. I don't want to be told what to say or what to think. I don't want the government knowing everything I think, say or do. I don't want them knowing what I buy or who I interact with. I don't want the government to be able to tell if I'm having sex or what. You get the picture...

And that's why I'm so concerned about guns and why to this day, I AM TERRIFIED OF CREDIT CARDS!!! DX
 
If any of that post was serious (and I'm mindful that 1st April is now a dead issue), and if it's not a very complicated troll, I'd say you need professional help.

Rolfe.
 
A girlfriend in high school lost her family when their thatch house caught alight and they couldn't get out.
But most houses in South Africa are brick,
Same here. Fire codes mandated it after the entire city burned down one day...
 
Rolfe...would the Columbine Shooters classify as juveniles ( 17 & 18 ) ? I'm curious as I don't know what constitutes a juvenile. I'm unsure how close these guys were to a criminal fraternity, not too close I suspect as the people who did the straw purchases were 1) one of the guy's dates, and 2) some guy they'd just met.

I'll take your word for it that these type of incidents are more prevalent in the US. We've only had one of these incidents in Canada that I can recall ( Taber Alberta ) but foe every 1 in Canada, I'd expect 10 in the US due to the population differences.

The Canadian tactic is to reduce access too. For instance we can't buy any "scary looking guns" but we can buy semi automatic sporting rifles...no LCMs though. When i asked about this in the gun store last year, the guy behind the counter said that the Canadian government's strategy was just this side of idiotic and they should have solicited the opinions of "people who know guns" rather than relying on appearance alone. Australia ( IIRC ) has banned all semi automatic rifles.

I understand the US approach. wasn't in Robert Heinlein who said "An armed society is a polite society" ? I follow the reasoning, I just have a hard time accepting it seeing as how I've never actually lived in the US. From my Canadian perspective I would tend to side with the idea that an armed society is a paranoid society myself.

I agree that gun control in the US is a very sensitive affair and were the US to decide that they, as a society , wanted to disarm, then I figure it would take generations to achieve it

Thankfully, yes, we have banned almost all auto, semi auto and pistol style guns over .38 calibre here. It was a similar incident to the british incidents that precipitated our gun law changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

However, like in the UK, it is relatively simple to obtain a license and gun for competition shooting and hunting (which in Australia mostly means duck and other waterbird hunting, Kangaroo hunting (delicious eating, the Kangaroo) and vermin shooting, mostly of rabbits, foxes, goats, pigs and, in the northern territory, cape buffalo)
 
However, leaving that aside, I would suggest that the facts support the suggestion that strict gun controls are indeed associated with lower levels of gun crime and gun deaths and specifically with an absence of the characteristic US-style school shootings.

Rolfe.

So a decrease in gun crime is good, even if it's not a decrease in total violent crime?

Is it somehow better to murder a man with a knife as opposed to a gun in your mind? Robberies, rapes, and assaults all must be ok too, just as long as one of those EVIL guns isn't involved!
 
Last edited:
So a decrease in gun crime is good, even if it's not a decrease in total violent crime?

Is it somehow better to murder a man with a knife as opposed to a gun in your mind? Robberies, rapes, and assaults all must be ok too, just as long as one of those EVIL guns isn't involved!

we've been through this before, and as I said then, robberies and assaults are "less bad than rape and murder. For some reason, despite lower urbanisation rates, and much higher gun ownership the USA has far more of the latter two than the UK (absolutely and per capita).

Tell me, do you think that robberies, assaults rapes and murders are all on a par to be lumped together?

Take a look at the increase in total violent crime in the UK, much of it is related to our drinking culture, do you really think that adding firearms to city centres awash with irresponsible drunks will have apositive outcome?
 
Neither answered whether actual use of deadly force (gun or otherwise) was justified in the case of an attack in the home.

I think it's always possible to put together a hypothetical case where virtually anyone would say "Yes, I'd shoot him under those circumstances". The question that really should be asked but rarely is is "Is this hypothetical likely enough to happen that it makes sense to arm the population to protect against it". In Britain, the general answer is "no" - not least because of the general climate of casual violence Brodski points out above.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom