| Casino Classic Best Online Casino! Get $500 free on the house! | Shared Movies Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows No Charge per movie, No download limit! | Weight Loss Supplements Natural supplements that burn body fat, suppress appetite and support a healthy diet. | Antidepressant Medications Handle stress, elevate the mood, treat anxiety disorders. |
|
Posted at December 31, 1969, 6:00 pm: It warms the cockles of my heart to see many here are pro-2nd amendment. As far as this country is concerned, so many people forget that the Bill of Rights is not a buffet where one can pick and choose what one finds convenient. I was going to respond to Golgot but others here have done such a fine job that I might as well take the easy way out. Golgot, I'm sure your heart is in the right place-- but your reasoning is not. You have made several references in your responses that indicate a level of inconsistency or confusion. For example, ""Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around."" You admit that guns were outlawed yet gun violence was still allowed to flourish-- even moreso than before the restrictions were imposed. This statement is the summation of the pro-gun advocates and the antithesis of what the gun control crowd would hope to convey. Did you even read this statement before you posted it? Also, there was this: ""London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low."" The point is that those guys who were using guns were crooks! If they wanted to mug or murder or burglar or rape they were already breaking the law. Using a gun only made it easier-- against law-abiding citizens who were likely unarmed! It's ridiculous. You say, ""Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison"" From Reason magazine: Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. Here is a sampling of Golgot's "utopia." : • In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict. • In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon. • In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal. • In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin. Golgot, don't even begin to reference your country's policies in regards to gun control. As you can see by the above examples, your laws make Beckett look like Norman Rockwell. Original of the message was taken from http://www.movieforums.com/community/ Previous Post: Taking guns out of the hands of civilians is one of the scariest notio... Next Post: Quote: Originally Posted by Karl Childers It ... |