If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(You are farked)   The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help   (theguntutor.com) divider line 373
    More: Amusing, Britain, Portland Police Bureau, Robert Green, kitchen knife, Portland Oregon, imminent threat  
•       •       •

5553 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2012 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-29 01:19:25 PM  

Kit Fister: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

You know what they say about men buying sports cars?

They like sports cars?

No, they like pancakes and have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.


I hate pancakes and gyms are for sedentary suit-stuffing.
 
2012-12-29 01:19:27 PM  
Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:06 PM  
I don't know why we pro gunners keep bringing up the UK. We punched their chocolate starfish centuries ago with some fine French help. If those frigid islanders want to live that way, best of luck.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:08 PM  

Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?


If you feel that the risk of a fire is so low that a fire extinguisher is more dangerous to you than a fire, I say go for it. However, fires are pretty common, and home invasions are not. I've examined the statistics and decided that the risk to myself and others from keeping a gun in the house is greater than the risk of not having one.

And the inevitable response: "There is no risk to myself, I'm a responsible gun owner". I'm sure Nancy Lanza said the same thing.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:16 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.


Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.
 
2012-12-29 01:22:42 PM  

Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.


The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.
 
2012-12-29 01:23:37 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

If you feel that the risk of a fire is so low that a fire extinguisher is more dangerous to you than a fire, I say go for it. However, fires are pretty common, and home invasions are not. I've examined the statistics and decided that the risk to myself and others from keeping a gun in the house is greater than the risk of not having one.

And the inevitable response: "There is no risk to myself, I'm a responsible gun owner". I'm sure Nancy Lanza said the same thing.


A lot if the risks of owning a firearm are in the form of suicides and children discovering unlocked guns with accessible ammunition.

I'm neither suicidal nor do I have children, so the risk is negligable. I'll take my chance with my gun sitting inertly on my nightstand.
 
2012-12-29 01:24:49 PM  
From the Weeners: "Rosey Greer"

/that should strike a chord with the kids
//and anyone else under 50
 
2012-12-29 01:26:03 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.


YKHIK you don't follow any gun forums? NDAA 2012 is brought up often as well as the disregard of the 4th and 5thKristina Rose amendments. But really, it's just toys, grown kids, and penises.
 
2012-12-29 01:26:03 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

If you feel that the risk of a fire is so low that a fire extinguisher is more dangerous to you than a fire, I say go for it. However, fires are pretty common, and home invasions are not. I've examined the statistics and decided that the risk to myself and others from keeping a gun in the house is greater than the risk of not having one.

And the inevitable response: "There is no risk to myself, I'm a responsible gun owner". I'm sure Nancy Lanza said the same thing.


She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.
 
2012-12-29 01:26:41 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


THINK OF THE CHILDREN

/funny, I grew up in a house where I had access to a shotgun. And from a young age I was taught how to operate, clean, and maintain said firearm.
//it must be a miracle that I didn't accidentally blow my head off.
 
ows
2012-12-29 01:27:01 PM  
i'll give you a right kick in the dingleberries i will.
 
2012-12-29 01:27:03 PM  
For some reason, I read the link as 'Gruntor.com'

I have no idea what a gruntor is, but after reading this thread, I'm fairly certain some of them are posting here.

Also, this is my new favorite word.  Gruntor.

/gruntor
 
2012-12-29 01:27:19 PM  

flsprtsgod:
Relevant to this discussion:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi



Any one got any more information on the Facebook account that got banned for posting this comment?

Saw it on Drudge. I'd bet there is a lot more to the story than what they are reporting.
 
2012-12-29 01:27:22 PM  

Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.


So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.
 
2012-12-29 01:29:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.


But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.
 
2012-12-29 01:31:15 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.


straws / grasping / etc.
 
2012-12-29 01:32:01 PM  

Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.

straws / grasping / etc.


Evading / goalposts / pathetic / done.
 
2012-12-29 01:33:03 PM  
"Bystanders are not to help "

mapage.noos.fr

Marquess of Queensberry rules now, we'll have a good clean fight!
 
2012-12-29 01:33:13 PM  
OK - here's how utterly disingenuous and farcically misleading the article is:

"In England doctors have called for a ban on long kitchen knives since 2005" = in 2005 a team of doctors in one hospital suggested that a ban on long kitchen knives would reduce the impact of knives being used in violent crimes.

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault." = a CATO report from 2004 quotes the BBC without citing a source and (surprise surprise) raises the case of Tony Martin who shot and killed an unarmed boy who was running away from his property. Bystanders ARE allowed to help prevent a crime, whether it is violent or not, in the UK, and can use force to do so.

RickN99: So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?


Vigorous self-defence is applauded by the British police, or at least is perfectly legal.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime...Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. ..If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head...

Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight...

What about if someone shoots?

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge."

Link
 
2012-12-29 01:33:57 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.

So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.


"High risk of.... Intentional unlawful usage"

How many guns are in America? About 300 million. How many gun crimes are committed? Find that answer and get back to me on whether or not that constitutes a high risk.

/your nuke example is terrible and you know it. You'd think a stats guy would see there is a much much greater risk of home invasion than getting nuked.
 
2012-12-29 01:33:58 PM  

kombat_unit: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

YKHIK you don't follow any gun forums? NDAA 2012 is brought up often as well as the disregard of the 4th and 5thKristina Rose amendments. But really, it's just toys, grown kids, and penises.


WUT?
 
2012-12-29 01:34:48 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.

straws / grasping / etc.

Evading / goalposts / pathetic / done.


Lol 4/10

Just quit and walk away while you're behind.
 
2012-12-29 01:34:49 PM  

Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.


I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.
 
2012-12-29 01:35:58 PM  
I love reading these threads, not participating mind you, I don't care nearly enough. It is very much like looking at this picture........


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-29 01:36:48 PM  

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?
 
2012-12-29 01:38:32 PM  
And what is the concern expressed in your link? The failure of gun control laws or a loophole in them?

The article in my link is irrelevant. The graph is. The UK essentially banned firearms and gun crime doubled.

You punished hundreds of thousands of good, law abiding citizens. You made them line up and turn in their handguns. Beyond that, you've criminalized the very concept of self defense to the point where you arrest, jail and prosecute folks who dare harm those who initiate violence against them for profit. The UK has essentially made every citizen into a subject, totally and completely dependent on the state for your personal protection and security.

The result? Crimes with a gun didn't go down... they doubled. Rapes, robberies and assaults are at or near the top of the charts for the EU. An entire criminal class in the UK essentially goes about it's business with absolute confidence that the average citizen will never be able to stand up to them, that the police are too overtaxed to catch them and in the unlikely event that they are apprehended, punishment will be extraordinarily light.

And yet, limp wristed UK gobbers like to post on forums about "American Guntards" and go on epic rants about how unenlightened we are here in the United States. I'm thinking it isn't elitism; it is (like American gun-grabbers) a totally misinformed view fueled by American movies and television shows.

America does have a murder problem - one that has declined by 40% since the 1990s. It's primary epicenter is to be found in major urban centers where drug gangs shoot one another. Remove those from the 10,000 gun murders a year, and our gun murder rate declines to be far more in-line with England's (roughly 2000 firearm murders). This will happen over time as we begin winding down our drug war - cocaine use in the US is down by half since 2006, heroin use has trickled down and held steady at extremely low numbers, meth peaked 10 years ago and is on the decline and we are on the cusp of simply legalizing marijuana.

As far as the rest of the gun crimes? Hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with a firearm every year. Some reports say that 2.5 Million Americans use a firearm in self defense (most never shoot- the crime ends when the criminal is confronted by an armed citizen), other reports say the number is more like 800,000 uses a year. Let's use the most pessimistic number from the Brady Campaign (the most vocal anti-gun group in the US) of 108,000.

So if the Brady Campaign had their way and turned the US into a "gun free" utopia the way the UK has, by their own numbers, the equivalent of the population of a small city would become victims of rape, assault, robbery or murder. Fantastic!

The only benefit the UK's gun laws have had on that country is to allow UK subjects to hold their noses up and call Americans unenlightened barbarians. For that, you've empowered a massive criminal class, increased your crime rate, doubled your gun crime and removed the basic human right of self defense from those in your boarders.
 
2012-12-29 01:40:05 PM  

ElBarto79: Cyno01: So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.

You can't storm an elementary school and kill 26 people with a bag of weed.


Of course you can't storm an elementary school with a bag of weed. Bags of weed have been illegal for decades. They no longer exist. As soon as we make guns illegal, they also will no longer exist and everybody will be safer.
 
2012-12-29 01:41:01 PM  

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


But the 2A isn't about merely fending off a burglar.

I don't care what Woody Guthrie's guitar says, it ain't a machine that can kill fascists.
 
2012-12-29 01:44:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?


No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.
 
2012-12-29 01:51:56 PM  

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?

No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.


How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.
 
2012-12-29 01:55:46 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'


You called it. Having debated extensively with gun nuts over the last week or so, they want their toys and don't give a flying fark about the 5k-10k additional murders that result (by comparison to murder rates in first tier Western nations with gun control).
 
2012-12-29 01:56:09 PM  

Cyno01: So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.


Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
 
2012-12-29 01:57:34 PM  

Mrbogey: Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.

The US has always had several times the crime than the UK since the creation of the US of A. Also, you're only citing gun crime. You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot? How does the math work on that?


The UK also has a murder rate 1/5th that of the USA, and so on down for other violent crimes. It has much broader reporting rules than the USA since Dunblane, hence the odd stats.
 
2012-12-29 01:57:41 PM  
It's as simple as this:

With freedom (in this case, the ability to defend yourself and your family) comes risk. The UK, generally, decided not to accept the risk and lose the freedom. In the US, we still would prefer to have the freedom knowing the risks.

Then there's this: by some accounts governments killed 100 million people in the last century. Some say it's as many as 250 million. In the big picture, that's a pretty hefty risk. It seems that some of the founders knew that risk which is why they penned the 2nd amendment (which, by the way, didn't grant the right to own a gun but rather said that preexisting right could not be taken away, which is interesting in itself).

There are those who say that because governments have more/bigger guns and therefore the point is beyond discussion. In a practical sense, that argument may have legs. When you think about it as an uneasy detente, though, it makes more sense.

Finally, have a look at Meyer's book called, "They Thought They Were Free". It deals rather well with incrementalism and the notion that, "it can't happen here".

Finally, it might be really, really instructive to talk to someone who is a survivor of a weapons purge and get their take. For me, it was a Cambodian refugee. It will make you rethink defense as a basic human right.
 
2012-12-29 01:57:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?

No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.


You answered your own question. The media told him what to believe. But hey, when a significant chunk of the media is in collusion with a significant chunk of the government with the message "civilians can't be trusted with X" who are you to question it?
 
2012-12-29 01:58:45 PM  
Kit Fister: Bomb He

You are completely and totally full of it.

Every day you are kept safe by the commonsense regulation of the highway system. In the UK, where the regulation is better, accident rates are lower. In Russia, where regulation is a joke, accident rates are much higher.

Every day you are kept safe by commonsense and good regulation of the food you eat and the medicine you use. Compare with: third world hellholes.

Your example of 'drugs' is ridiculous. Illegal drugs are not sensibly regulated. Their completely banned under a system that does not work, just like clearly the current US system of gun regulation is quite broken.

Really. Get your head out of your backside.
 
2012-12-29 01:59:21 PM  
I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

The ideal weapon for home defense is an AR-15.

The myth that the pump action shotgun is the best gun for home defense is just that, a myth. Here is why:

1- People think that shotguns are a blunderbuss, where the pellets spread wide and make inaccurate aiming irrelevant. This is untrue. Shotgun pellets only spread about 1" for every yard of distance. So in a hallway or across a living room, we're only talking a 3-4" spread.

2- 00 buck and slugs tend to penetrate walls while continuing to carry a lot of velocity and staying relatively intact. That means they are still potentially lethal after going through 2-3 walls. The 5.56mm ammo out of an AR is very fast, but the bullet is lightweight, so when it hits any solid object, it begins to tumble and break apart (in human bodies, this is what allows the tiny bullet to be so effective). When you shoot a wall with a 5.56mm round, it will go through, but it also has a tendency to break apart and not be very lethal. This is why most SWAT teams switched from 9mm HK MP5s to M4 carbines; less potential collateral damage.

3- Capacity. The typical pump action shotgun holds 5 rounds, 7 with an extended tube. It takes *substantial* practice to be able to reliably reload one in an active gunfight when the adrenaline in your body turns your fingers into flippers. Even the police only have a 13% overall hit rate when engaging criminals. A citizen, with limited training and stress inoculation is going to fair nowhere near as well as a trained cop who has a lot of experience with adrenaline effects during fights. The 30 round magazine in the AR is life on your side. Nobody who ever survived a gunfight with a bad guy ever said "Gee, I wish I didn't have all this ammo!"

4- Recoil. Most people who pick up a shotgun and fire full-power ammo through it find the experience farking miserable. I'm guessing that the non-gun people who buy a shotgun for home defense shoot it once and throw it in the closet as a magical talisman to ward off evil. An AR-15 has very little recoil and is absolutely fun to shoot. A 5' grandma can effectively shoot one. Your wife can effectively shoot one. You will enjoy shooting it enough that you might go to the range and become competent with it. A firearm you don't practice with regularly is next to useless in a self defense scenario.

My Noveske N4 carbine sits right in the closet by my bed with a topped off mag, one in the chamber, safety on, Aimpoint on and fresh CR123s in the SureFire light. Things that go bump in the night at our house don't bother me at all.

(and yes, it is somewhat ironic how I just put-down shotguns for home defense, given my screen name. I'm pretty good with my Benelli and my KSG, but the AR is the better weapon for everything)
 
2012-12-29 02:01:16 PM  

ParaHandy: You called it. Having debated extensively with gun nuts over the last week or so, they want their toys and don't give a flying fark about the 5k-10k additional murders that result (by comparison to murder rates in first tier Western nations with gun control).


And you anti-gun nuts continue to ignore the obvious facts that most of those "Additional" murders are actually suicides and/or drug-related, carried out by criminals.

So, let's cut the crap, because as long as we keep screaming each other while ignoring the salient points, we get nowhere.
 
2012-12-29 02:01:56 PM  
No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...
 
2012-12-29 02:03:06 PM  

ParaHandy: Bomb Head Mohammed: The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clu ...


Because you can directly compare the U.S. and other countries simply by murder numbers without consideration for any other variables such as culture etc. Good jerb.
 
2012-12-29 02:05:46 PM  

dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...


Even full auto M16s in the military are not used for killing lots of people in the way that he thinks. That function is mainly for suppressive fire.

It's like these people think fire fights are exactly like Rambo movies.
 
2012-12-29 02:05:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.


Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?
 
2012-12-29 02:06:28 PM  

Silverstaff: snuff3r: If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron.

Gee, your enlightened, polite, reasonable argument is SO persuasive.

Why is it that when we look at other cultures, the left tries to encourage us to not pass judgment on their values and mores under the idea of cultural relativism, but if those values include the idea that the right to bear arms is a civil right, then suddenly they are barbaric bad guys?

Mao Tse-Tung rather famously declared that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun. While orthodox US political theory holds that political power flows from the will of the people, Mao's idea that having force to back up that will of the people holds a little merit. It's a lot harder to steal from somebody who can respond with lethal force. Nobody wants violence, but in this country, we have

Also, note that the pro-gun lobby in the US had a great deal of scorn for British gun control, since the whole original reason we have a Constitutional right to bear arms was as a direct response to British oppression in the 1760's and 1770's. Our two nations have a special relationship, but bringing up anything that brings back memories of the Revolution will make things unpleasant, and gun control is one of those things.

I think TFA is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd only believe that if I saw it from some reputable source, however, the referenced BBC article Link is real and says exactly what the article does. A proposed ban on kitchen knives?



No, a ban on long pointed kitchen knives. How often does a chef have to stab something? Most knives I use in the kitchen are for slicing and chopping. The only time I can think of using the pointed end to stab something was trying to open some packaging, and a small pointed knife, which they are not calling to be banned, would actually be easier to use for that.

No ban on short pointed knives or carving and chopping knives with a rounded or flat end.

For self defence, which UK law does allow, I have my fathers old army swagger stick that comes apart to reveal an 18 inch long very pointed and very sharp blade....
 
2012-12-29 02:07:06 PM  

RickN99: Via Infinito: Right subs. I'm sure the "information" provided by guntutor.com is completely true and not a large pile of horse shiat.

So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?


TFA cites this article for "the BBC says" but they quote the BBC without a cite of their own. They also say Tony Martin was jailed for shooting two burglars but fail to mention he shot them while they were running away, a fact that changes the story somewhat. Is it legal in the US to shoot a burglar while he is running away?
 
2012-12-29 02:07:06 PM  

Pert: OK - here's how utterly disingenuous and farcically misleading the article is:

"In England doctors have called for a ban on long kitchen knives since 2005" = in 2005 a team of doctors in one hospital suggested that a ban on long kitchen knives would reduce the impact of knives being used in violent crimes.

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault." = a CATO report from 2004 quotes the BBC without citing a source and (surprise surprise) raises the case of Tony Martin who shot and killed an unarmed boy who was running away from his property. Bystanders ARE allowed to help prevent a crime, whether it is violent or not, in the UK, and can use force to do so.

RickN99: So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?

Vigorous self-defence is applauded by the British police, or at least is perfectly legal.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime...Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. ..If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head...

Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight...

What about if someone shoots?

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge."

Link


i.e. in the UK you can't shoot a kid with Skittles for walking round the nieghbourhood, nor can you blow someone away for merely being present on your property but not in the curtilege (a guy in the last thread said he plans to take out anyone who sets foot on his land from his front porch with his AR15 ... maybe he nicked the census man?)
 
2012-12-29 02:07:59 PM  

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?


"Assault rifle"

Inigo_Montoya.jpg
 
2012-12-29 02:09:01 PM  

dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...


This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.
 
2012-12-29 02:09:21 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.

So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.


Used to work for Mrs Queen at a nuclear licensed facility, and I still have my stash of KI pills, so getting a kick ...

/ just a souvenir
 
2012-12-29 02:10:35 PM  

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?


Read the above summary by dr-shotgun for your answer.

Also, no gun is "designed for killing people." That sentence doesn't make any sense. They are designed to fire a projectile. You can aim it at people or a target. Your attempt at inflammatory language is falling short.
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report