One for Richard G

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/08/1086460269136.html

A young Sydney woman has fought off a home invader by punching him in the face when he broke into her home and threatened her baby.

The 24-year-old mother was at home in Seaforth - on Sydney's northern beaches - with her six-month-old son when she heard glass shattering in another room about 11.15am (AEST) yesterday, police said.

A man broke into the house and when the woman refused to hand over property, he threatened both her and her baby.

But when the woman lashed out, punching him in the face, the intruder ran out of the house, driving off in a white Ford Laser hatchback.

Now if only they'd both had guns, things might have turned out better.

 

[shuize]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/08/1086460269136.html
Now if only they'd both had guns, things might have turned out better.

Or, if only the criminal had a gun, my bet is that things would have turned out much worse.

The U.S. is saturated in illegal guns. Talk all you want about how bad things are, but they aren't going away. In fact, the only thing that a gun ban in the U.S. would do is to leave law-abiding citizens unarmed. It would have zero effect on the illegal supply from which most repeat offender felons arm themselves.

If you're trying to make a point to a U.S. poster, you have to put the scenario in U.S. terms. That version would have the burglar armed. In that case, you may still feel the home-alone mother is better off unarmed. But just don't think the burglar will be.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: One for Richard G

Or, if only the criminal had a gun, my bet is that things would have turned out much worse.

The U.S. is saturated in illegal guns. Talk all you want about how bad things are, but they aren't going away. In fact, the only thing that a gun ban in the U.S. would do is to leave law-abiding citizens unarmed. It would have zero effect on the illegal supply from which most repeat offender felons arm themselves.

If you're trying to make a point to a U.S. poster, you have to put the scenario in U.S. terms. That version would have the burglar armed. In that case, you may still feel the home-alone mother is better off unarmed. But just don't think the burglar will be.

Always remember...the answer to too many guns is more guns.

 

[shuize]

The foreign sarcasm strikes again ...

So much for trying to make a serious post on this topic. I should have known better.

 

[The Fool]

The foreign sarcasm strikes again ...

So much for trying to make a serious post on this topic. I should have known better.

so stop arguing against "gun bans" because nobody I have seen post here has suggested that.... Try arguing about reducing the pool of guns that you are "saturated in" Do you think that would be a good Idea?

 

[a_unique_person]

The foreign sarcasm strikes again ...

So much for trying to make a serious post on this topic. I should have known better.

It was really meant to be more of a comment on RichardG's threads.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: One for Richard G

If you're trying to make a point to a U.S. poster, you have to put the scenario in U.S. terms.

Why? Richard G's method is to cherry pick some recent crime in a country outside the US—usually the UK—to try and make the case that the country in question should have guns, usually accompanied by some pejorative about "Socialist, mommy gummint stoopidity" and which generally displays a complete and utter ignorance about the history and culture of that country. This might lead one to conclude that Richard G's position is based on "my country is better than yours"-style chauvinism, and as his errors have been pointed out to Richard G ad nauseum, it's futile to present the point in a manner which might aid his understanding. But we live in hope and bottom line is it can be fun just to take the mess for a bit.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Re: Re: Re: One for Richard G

Why? Richard G's method is to cherry pick some recent crime in a country outside the US—usually the UK—to try and make the case that the country in question should have guns, usually accompanied by some pejorative about "Socialist, mommy gummint stoopidity" and which generally displays a complete and utter ignorance about the history and culture of that country. This might lead one to conclude that Richard G's position is based on "my country is better than yours"-style chauvinism, and as his errors have been pointed out to Richard G ad nauseum, it's futile to present the point in a manner which might aid his understanding. But we live in hope and bottom line is it can be fun just to take the mess for a bit.

I think that is being unduly harsh on Dicky boy. He displays a great knowledge about the Britain and it's gun laws and is more than willing to provide the evidence to substantiate his clever and rational insights......

Oh no wait, hang on........

 

[Tricky]

Why? Richard G's method is to cherry pick some recent crime in a country outside the US—usually the UK—to try and make the case that the country in question should have guns, usually accompanied by some pejorative about "Socialist, mommy gummint stoopidity" and which generally displays a complete and utter ignorance about the history and culture of that country. This might lead one to conclude that Richard G's position is based on "my country is better than yours"-style chauvinism, and as his errors have been pointed out to Richard G ad nauseum, it's futile to present the point in a manner which might aid his understanding. But we live in hope and bottom line is it can be fun just to take the mess for a bit.

Yes, Richard G's single thought (and even having one is taxing to his cranial capacity) is that other countries would be much better if only they had as many guns as the US. Nothing will disabuse him of this notion, especially not amusingly contradictory threads like this one.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Perhaps Richard G has business interests in a gun export company.

Charlie (if I wanted to kill someone, I'd hire a Thuggee from India) Monoxide

 

[BillyTK]

I think that is being unduly harsh on Dicky boy. He displays a great knowledge about the Britain and it's gun laws and is more than willing to provide the evidence to substantiate his clever and rational insights......

Oh no wait, hang on........

Yes, Richard G's single thought (and even having one is taxing to his cranial capacity) is that other countries would be much better if only they had as many guns as the US. Nothing will disabuse him of this notion, especially not amusingly contradictory threads like this one.

Y'see, the thing is I grew up with these gun laws, and as a result see the redundancy of gun ownership as a self-evident truth; the first time I saw a real live gun—on the hip of a Spanish police officer—I have to admit I felt distinctly queasy. But when I started to look into how the gun laws came about, my views changed; I don't think these laws are particularly legitimate or just, not because they infringe some "God-given", basic right, but because these laws were originated to protect the ruling class from the threat of armed revolt by ordinary people—because gun ownership was not that common anyway, and certainly not a big a deal as it appears to be for some of our US colleagues—as well as to further clamp down on the Irish Republican movement.

So I find myself in the curious position of defending a situation that I don't particularly agree with. Admittedly it's because I don't see how the alternatives on offer would be anymore benificial than the system we have now, and mostly because the opposing argument is typically utter, wretched pants, but it's an odd situation to be in really.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

I don't think these laws are particularly legitimate or just, not because they infringe some "God-given", basic right, but because these laws were originated to protect the ruling class from the threat of armed revolt by ordinary people—because gun ownership was not that common anyway, and certainly not a big a deal as it appears to be for some of our US colleagues—as well as to further clamp down on the Irish Republican movement.

[/B]

These points are pretty true, but as to the validity of recent gun laws the 1689 Bill of rights clearly establishes that the possesion of weapons is subject to the Law of the land. Their quite simply is no constitutional basis for an unqualified right to bear arms in modern, parliamentary times.

I have tried telling this to Dicky boy but he mumbled something about being "subjects" of the government (even though were not)

Still, he makes me laugh which is always good...........

(edited for clarity)

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by shuize
The U.S. is saturated in illegal guns. Talk all you want about how bad things are, but they aren't going away. In fact, the only thing that a gun ban in the U.S. would do is to leave law-abiding citizens unarmed. It would have zero effect on the illegal supply from which most repeat offender felons arm themselves.

Are you sure about that? According to a 1997 department of Justice survey, 9.9% of prisoners used a stolen gun to commit their offence. 1,695,482 firearms have been reported stolen to police since 1993...so the more guns people own, the more resources there are for criminals.

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm

 

[BillyTK]

These points are pretty true, but as to their validity the 1689 Bill of rights clearly establishes that the possesion of weapons is subject to the Law of the land. Their quite simply is no constitutional basis or right to bear arms in modern, parliamentary times.

The Bill of Rights also states that only "subjects which are protestants" may bear arms, although I'm not too sure to what extent the Bill is considered a binding legal document though?

But laws have to be just, otherwise we get restless and have them overturned *koffThePollTaxkoff*, and without the use of guns at that! Who'd'a thought?

I have tried telling this to Dicky boy but he mumbled something about being "subjects" of the government (even though were not)

I've had equal success pointing out to him that the gun laws were mainly authored by Conservative governments.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

The Bill of Rights also states that only "subjects which are protestants" may bear arms, although I'm not too sure to what extent the Bill is considered a binding legal document though?

But laws have to be just, otherwise we get restless and have them overturned *koffThePollTaxkoff*, and without the use of guns at that! Who'd'a thought?
.

The status of the Bill of Rights actually answers both your questions here.

It is one of the most important parts of our constitution (contrary to the popular misconception that the UK has no written constitution: it does, but it is an uncodified constitution i:e their is no single document which is "the constitution")

Its most important "act" is that laws cannot be passed without the consent of parliament, in effect limiting the power of the Monarch. Most importantly, it established the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignity. British Parliament has the power to pass legislation on any subject whatsoever, other than legislation limiting its own powers to legislate. Thus, Parliament has the power to amend or repeal the Bill of Rights, or to pass legislation inconsistent with it.

Checks and balances are built into this through other acts to prevent parliamentary abuses. Therefore, laws which are seen as unjust can be rectified through the electoral process. And of course as Maggie found out, don't push the people too far.....

The point about the right to arms being limited to protestants is valid, but probably the least important part of it. Its the "as allowed by law" part which is the main basis for saying their is no right to bear arms here. It clearly refers to law as they evolve over time. There is no appeal to an irrefutable, basic "human right" to be armed.

(edited because I forgot Parlaimnet can abolish itself. I have been arguing elsewhere it shouldn't be able to do this)

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

To be fair to Dicky, he really is doing nothing more than regurgitating the utter garbage about gun laws over here he reads on his "I love my big gun" websites. Like this little beauty from

the highroad:

"The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed."

Oh deary me..........

 

[Elio]

I know that gun legislation is complex issue, but would'nt you say that if burglars know that a high percentage of people have guns, they might be tempted to carry a gun as well ?

Elio.

 

[evil sutko]

Richard G hardly ever replies to his own threads. Doubt he'll show up in this one.

He's a hit-and-run poster, Winston-Wu-style...

 

[BillyTK]

The status of the Bill of Rights actually answers both your questions here.

It is one of the most important parts of our constitution (contrary to the popular misconception that the UK has no written constitution: it does, but it is an uncodified constitution i:e their is no single document which is "the constitution")

Its most important "act" is that laws cannot be passed without the consent of parliament, in effect limiting the power of the Monarch. Most importantly, it established the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignity. British Parliament has the power to pass legislation on any subject whatsoever, other than legislation limiting its own powers to legislate. Thus, Parliament has the power to amend or repeal the Bill of Rights, or to pass legislation inconsistent with it.

Checks and balances are built into this through other acts to prevent parliamentary abuses. Therefore, laws which are seen as unjust can be rectified through the electoral process. And of course as Maggie found out, don't push the people too far.....

The point about the right to arms being limited to protestants is valid, but probably the least important part of it. Its the "as allowed by law" part which is the main basis for saying their is no right to bear arms here. It clearly refers to law as they evolve over time. There is no appeal to an irrefutable, basic "human right" to be armed.

(edited because I forgot Parlaimnet can abolish itself. I have been arguing elsewhere it shouldn't be able to do this)

But that contravenes our self-evident, God-given human rights!

One of the things I find paradoxical about our "living constitution" business; on the one hand it's good that Parliament can overturn previous laws, or pass laws which are inconsistent with other laws, but I wonder about the legitimacy of such laws if there's the possibility that they might be overturned at a later date.

Originally posted by Elio
I know that gun legislation is complex issue, but would'nt you say that if burglars know that a high percentage of people have guns, they might be tempted to carry a gun as well ?

Elio.

IIRC, most burglaries are carried out when the home-owner is out of the house anyway. Also IIRC, a Manchester University study showed that keeping guns in your house is more likely to increase the risk of burglary because guns have such a high street value. I guess there's a perverse argument for relaxing gun restrictions in there somewhere, but I don't particularly want to go there...

 

[Agammamon]

so stop arguing against "gun bans" because nobody I have seen post here has suggested that.... Try arguing about reducing the pool of guns that you are "saturated in" Do you think that would be a good Idea?

How exactly do you propose to do that when the cities themselves like to sell the confiscated guns to bring in revenue. If guns are so bad then they shouldn't do that, right? Sure, much like Florida says tobacco is so bad and cost the state so much that they deserve a big chunk of the settlement, and the turn right around and re-invest the state employees pension fund in tobacco stocks (nobody ever said this stuff makes sense).

Now I suppose that if we were to stop manufacturing firearms completely then the number of guns already in circulation would drop to zero - in about a hundred years, since guns are one of the most durable goods ever made.