I know. But I didn't throw any toys out of the pram (don't use a pram) because I like my toys! They're mine! Mine!

Just like my guns. Our guns. We like them and we will keep them. As has been said, it is kind of ingrained in us to have them. I don't expect you lot to understand why it is important to us, but I am not going to change your minds. I'll continue to discuss it, but all of the quotes about killing with guns won't change much. It is not that I disagree that in some cases it makes it easier to kill somebody, or perhaps more convenient; it also may speak to a premeditated nature or conscious effort on one's part to go get the gun.

We can argue all day long on the wording on the Second Amendment as well, but the fact remains that IF someone had a strong Constitutional argument to eliminate guns, they'd have done it. The Democrats (typically anti-gun) could have attempted it the same way they ramrodded obamacare through. But they didn't because if they did that they'd have a huge, protracted fight on their hands.

The thread title is gun laws. I have already stated that if we in the U.S. would follow and enforce the gun laws we already have, we would be much better off. Gun control is not the same as gun elimination and [some of] you folks seem to think they are one in the same.

I apologise to you if I came across snippy in my last post to you.

I may be lucky in that I live a LONG way from a lot of the UK and city life, but I don't know of anyone who has had an encounter like you describe

And, there really isn't the hunting aspect here either, at most you'd be talking about rabbits, though usually it would more about pest control than food

In short what I originally said was...

I may be misinterpreting what you've said but you seem to put across that only bystanders are innocent, rather than the person being aimed at. I generally believe /anyone/ being shot is innocent, no one should be shot. The only time it is maybe acceptable is if they've shot at the police, maybe, but I'm not sure about my views on this. I tend to believe killing someone is bad, irrelevant of what they have done.


I think your knives argument is pretty pointless. It's impossible to compare knife crime to gun crime. Saying people will always want to kill people is fine, but guns make it far too easy.
I would 100% prefer someone to try and kill me with a knife rather than a gun. The act of stabbing someone is so much more involved, it takes a totally different mindset to get up close to someone and stab them. There are less people capable of those actions than there are people who would be able to pull the trigger.

Pointless. Knife. <\bringing the tone down>

I did mention the pun in my original post :$

Quite alright, it's an emotive issue.

I would be interested as to what you meant by:
 
Though.

It's virtually pointless having a transatlantic discussion on gun law.  We don't want US gun law, the US doesn't want ours; but it's Ok, because we each have our own, not each other's.  If anybody is unhappy with their own country's gun law, they have every right to debate and to lobby their government to change their country's laws.  But they have fuck all right to lobby other country's governments in order to change laws that don't apply to them.

Tru dat. No point continuing!

So if someone breaks into my house and may have a weapon or evil intentions, you feel I am not allowed to shoot him/her?

Manthorp's money is no good at the Pub tonight, see me for the tab.

F all the guns. We n=may not agree, but when I come for a holiday over there we can solve it over a pint or three - even though my cousing says sevral of you are daft.

i get some of the excellent points that have been made and agree with many of them to a point, but it won't change a whit.

(how do quotes work now? As in clicking the link at the bottom of a post you want to quote. Or do they just... not)
 
Yeah, believe it or not, and I think this is where each side of the Atlantic blows each other's minds, for a lot of people here (and not all) they don't think "may have" is enough to justify an immediate death sentence. Self defence is OK though. So we had a famous case where a fleeing burglar was shot in the back by a farmer, and the farmer served some time in prison. That certainly caused some discussion. But home invaders have been killed by homeowners without penalty in other circumstances.

It is odd how they sometimes work. sometimes I forget the quote box and can just paste in highlighted text, sometimes I can't; other times I use the quote box and that red line with the return arrow on it won't let me do anything. I am at a loss. This time of course, everything worked properly.
 

Somebody breaks into my house, I am not waiting to see if he was just eager to present me with flowers. I am assuming he has bad intent by the simple fact he committed a B&E; mind you, at the least it is unlawful entry if a person enters my home without my knowledge or invite, even if the door is not locked or even open. At that point, I do not ask. If it was somebody I knew who needed to get in for any reason, they'd have called. Someone who comes into my house while I and my family sleep will get shot dead assuming I can get my firearm ready in time. If not, I have another suitable weapon ready.

If it sounds a bit whacko to you, just know that the city has been moving closer to the suburbs with every passing year. We have had people have their cars entered (my neighborhood and right next door) and personal effects stolen, homes entered via screens being cut with a knife and valuables stolen. There have also been prowlers in vans looking for young children and/or women.

I expect Santa will come down the chimney on Christmas Eve, so if I hear a noise in the basement that night I will know who it is and go back to sleep if I am not too excited. [g] Other than that, if someone enters my house unannounced and unexpected in the wee hours, I am going to fill my hand fast.

I have to say this though: My brother has a pistol, a semi auto. My brother is a bit of an odd duck and I do not agree with how he carries his gun. He has broken the law technically a couple of times when he has carried it (the way it was done) and he heard shit from me when he did it. I think he should get rid of the gun. Once he left the gun loaded in the glove box of my mom's car and he asked me to retrieve it for him. In my mind, the priviledge or owning and carrying a weapon is overshadowed by the great responsibility automatically to be assumed upon being granted that right. That means not "forgetting" a lethal weapon in someone else's car! also, I believe if one borrows another's car, that person should have a say so whether or not they even want the gun in their car.

I understand why he carries the gun though. when he lived in Philadelphia he actually had some guy try to climb in his front window at night. He lives in a not-too-nice neighborhood now in a semi-suburban environment. I never understood why he chose to live there. He carries the pistol for those reasons (or at least has the gun) and also years ago at work he was attacked by a co-worker who held a knife to his throat. Oddly, the employer never called the polic; I do not recall why my brother did not. In today's environment, a huge lawsuit would have been the result, the offending employee would have been fired and likely improsoned and my brother would have been using the suit money to find a newer, better job. The place has long since closed unrelated to that.

I'm glad you, nor anyone you know, has had such an experience. It's a horrifying thing I wouldn't wish on anyone.

We're in redneck/hillbilly country for the most part. Some things hunted here for eating are deer, rabbits, squirrels, bear, possum, groundhog, turkey, pheasant, and duck. A few have even been known to hunt rattlesnake. Some of what is hunted I'll eat. Some I don't like the taste of and won't. A good many fish as well. Whatever they can do to cut down on expenses and care for family.

This area's job situation has sucked for many years. I know. Some say move, but a lot of these people have family or financial obligations keeping them here, or they simply can't afford to get out. So they do what they can to survive and care for family. Right down to taking to the woods and land to feed them.

Sometimes the person being aimed at needs to be shot. That is why there is a justifiable homicide law.

For example, Joe comes home, finds some guy he doesn't know plowing the stuffing out of his wife and he doesn't take the time to figure out whether she is enjoying it or not. He assumes she is being raped, pulls out his pistol and shoots him. Make the scenario any way you want, but the end result is still likely the same.

Or Joe comes home, hears noise in house and gets his gun from the garage or shed, then surprises some guy rifling through his desk drawers with belongings strewn everywhere. Joe confronts the assumed burglar and he turns toward Joe with something in his hands and Joe shoots him.

See, you are assuming eberyone who gets shot is innocent. That is a rather naive view of the real world, don't you think? So do you think if someone shoots at me, even though I am not a policeman, I am killing someone who is "innocent"? Absurd, sir.

 

I think the big difference is that because we don't really have guns it is generally unlikely that anyone breaking and entering will have a gun, therefore I/we don't feel the need to own a gun in case these things happen.

In the US, most people can get hold of a gun so the person breaking and entering could quite easily have a gun. I guess I do understand why you would feel the need to own a gun under these circumstances.

I might be wrong and I don't know any statistics on this, but what sort of people rob houses? I kinda think it's more likely to be people who are in need, someone who needs money for drugs, can't feed their children because they're out of work. A lot of people need to be pretty desperate to rob someone's house. These people don't need killing, they need helping.

Actually, I think most statistics are somewhat bullshit. There are too many variables to consider especially in something controversial such as this, and even the shit I posted was something I found which applied to my argument. The problem with statistics in many cases is, If I am defending gun ownership I can be subjective and "find" information supporting my argument and the reverse is also true. Cherry-picked data. The crap I posted about knives was probably from some anti-knife zealot.

I can't really trust statistics from either side, to be fair. Figures lie and liars figure. Nobody is truly objectibive and that is what the whole argument/discussion is about.

Why aren't knives also mentioned by Freud (or maybe they were and I was nodding off during the lecture). I mean, they are male-shaped, aren't they? I never really thought of the gun as an extension of the penis so much as an extension of the hand or fist. I am not sexually aroused by guns. Other, kinky things perhaps, but that is fodder for another discussion and perhaps you are not keen to know. [G]

I wouldn't shoot the man.
  I wouldn't shoot the man.


If someone shoots at you, maybe (probably) it is justifiable. You then go down the messy route of shooting because you /think/ someone has a gun - then there's the excuse of shooting them to protect yourself in case they have a gun.