Speaking as someone who's licensed to carry concealed and has been present during a shooting while unarmed myself due to compliance with my employer's no weapon policy, I find the idea that this horrible event could have been prevented by banning guns a bit naive. I find a poster over at dBforums, msmeland, has identified the real problem far more eloquently than I ever could: http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=989246&page=484

I wonder if that could still be used :) but I did think that the NRA quoted the 2nd amendment, or part thereof not English Law.The NRA would quote Dante if they thought it would help;)

I'm sure you're right, I'm merely pointing out that the whole "militia" preface to the "right to bear and keep arms" in the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant when they point out the common law precedent upon which it is believed the Amendment is based.

You are all missing the big picture. if you ban gun , people who want them will still be able to get guns, they will just be going to the criminals and the thugs, the underground elements of society to get them. The majority of the time, crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. the perpetrators of these type of acts, VT Columbine etc. would have found a way to get a firearm one way or the other. I do think that there needs to be stricter purchase measures in place. a complete background check, even if they did "voluntarily" go to the institution.

but that is just my opinion

If there were NO legal guns, there would be no gun shops or wholesalers.
Without gun shops, the number of guns being manufactured in and/or imported into the USA would go down dramatically.
With a decrease in the overall number of guns, it stands to reason that there wond't be as many new illegal weapons out there. Unless the suggestion is that none of the guns owned by criminals originally come from legal sources?

At the very least, this would mean that a criminal/lunatic who wanted one would have to work harder to get one and this would deter a lot from bothering. I get the impression that the latest massacre wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if the guy hadn't been able to stroll into a shop, fill in a few forms, undergo a (clearly ineffective, given what happened) bit of investigation and get one.

Remember that a Gun is not dangerous in itself.

Leave a gun alone and it will not harm anybody

Its only when it gets into the hands of a person that the danger potential exist


Neither is a hand grenade, bit I wouldn't want people to be able to have easy access to one just because they promised they were only going to throw it at a target.

Yeah, but his points all come from a Sociological instead of a Psychological point of view so we ignore him:p

:D

HAHA I'm the only American making good points...

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lghr0148.jpg

HAHA I'm the only American making good points...
of course you are...http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/images/smilies/patronizing.gif

I get the impression that the latest massacre wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if the guy hadn't been able to stroll into a shop, fill in a few forms, undergo a (clearly ineffective, given what happened) bit of investigation and get one.

I think that this is the problem:"The investigations". I don't think that there should be no gun shops, but that the investigation should be a lot more effective. Most of the cases seen on TV talks about someone who had problems prior to their final acts. The autorities should take more precautions with someone like that. It shouldn't be that easy to get a gun from a gun shop, just like it shouldn't be as easy to get pills at a drug store.

I think that the US is so affraid to act against someone's freedom that they rather let someone get what he should not than forbid someone that could have the right to get it. Here in Canada, it works the other way around. You don't have the right to get it, until it is proven that you can handle it.

as with most perpetrators of such offenses, illegally obtained automatic pistols, serial numbers filed off, untraceable. These guys don't go to the local gun shop and browse the bargain bins, they buy them on the street for $25, use them for nefarious purposes and sell them to the next punk for $25 and the cycle continues.

So you're saying these punks are responsible for all the gun deaths in the US?
By the way how many of these "criminals were criminals before thay carried out these school massacres?:confused:
How many checks are carried out at gun fairs?:confused:

Maybe someday we will get to live in nation as perfect as you think you live in. ;)

Only if your guns back home in the States:p

As far as the general gun ban goes, I really don't think it would accomplish anything. When you live on an island, maybe it's easier to keep control (somewhat) of what comes into your borders. ;) But what makes any of us think that we'll be more successful at keeping guns from coming in from Mexico than we are drugs? A ban on guns would mostly affect the 99% of us that are law-abiding. :(

Weren't those that perpetrate these killings law abiding citizens to start with?
And don't the Canadians manage quite well?

I think that it it easier to get a gun from a gun shop than to get to Mexico, buy one there and bring it back to the US side of the borders.

I'd like to see how many mass killers bought their guns legaly compares to those who bought them on the black market.

I'd also like to see, out of those who bought it from guns shop, how many already had cases with justice or had known psychological problems prior to their final acts.

If someone knows some statistics about that, please share.

Rich --> We, Canadians, can't get guns from USA to Canada 'cause the USA wants to keep them for themself. :p Actualy, there is not a lot of guns that crosses the CAN/USA borders. Most of them though get across via Natives that can get across the borders more easily.

I also believe that we are more scared than Americans about buying things on the black market. It is my impression though and that might be false. But if it is true, is it because Canadian authorities are more serious about it or is it just in our catholic/roman culture?

Also, don't forget that there is many more Americans than Canadians. So any statistic to refer to should be in percent, not in numbers. More people equals more crimes, that is logic. If you are two on an island and you get kill, the island is not safer because they only had one kill in it's history.

There's a few percentages in this report Newman, 'course Americans won't like it because it reinforces the statement that American society cares only for one thing "profit":rolleyes:

When Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns and when all law-abiding citizens are disarmed they shall be at the mercy of those that have guns whenever and wherever those gun owners choose to violate society's RIGHTS under the law.

LAW SIMPLY DOES NOT PREVENT ONE FROM BECOMING A VICTIM. Law is not some kind of magic shield that one can hold up to protect oneself even from a physical beating or mugging... Law is what "polite society" agrees to abide by; and what is used to prosecute those that break the law. Those that break the law are not part of "polite society" and don't give a damn about the Law or the consequences of breaking it.

Historically, governments can be as abusive of the governed as criminals are of their victims. That is why there have been revolutions where the people have had to defend themselves against their government oppressors and it's armies. This is true of the Revolutionary War that gave birth to undeniably, the greatest nation on the face of this planet: The United States of America...

Since the birth of this great nation, the people of the United States have been overwhelmingly active is assisting other countries, at their request or evidence of their dire straits, in their struggles for stability, peace and justice. The US has been charitably supporting the less-fortunate, has often pulled US allies' arses out of the fire.. and YES, when necessary, with the use of arms against their allies' attackers or oppressors who were also using arms to attack and oppress. Many of the beneficiaries of this assistance have forgotten or ignore the facts and consciously chose to ignore that their lives would be very different today had not the US aided in those countries' struggles of the past... And they criticize the US and look down their noses at its people, forgetting that the RIGHTS they have today that allow them to do so are in large part thanks to the aid received from their benefactor in time of their most desperate need...

In retrospect, I guess we should have held up a piece of paper with laws written on it and railed at the attackers or oppressors to ABIDE by the "International Law" and Protocols set forth therein. We would have been RIGHT to do so and RIGHT to expect the parties involved to all do what is RIGHT. The problem is not everyone knows what is RIGHT or has a differing opinion about what is RIGHT. It's subjective.

YES, we would have been DEAD RIGHT to do and to expect compliance, but we would have been DEAD all the same! Patrick Henry, a prominent figure in the American Revolution, is known and remembered for his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech. This phrase expresses the heart of our founding fathers...

And our founding fathers were great men, wise beyond their years and THEY made sure that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms was written into the BILL OF RIGHTS of the US Constitution so that future governments could not oppress the people of this nation without trepidation. They sought to ensure that individuals had the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to protect home and hearth from nefarious forces bent on the destruction of this society.

Only the people of the US can allow themselves to be stripped of this RIGHT and that is not very likely to happen in light of historical events. The lesson lost on many is that, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And Americans of conscience will never allow this.

AS FOR THE DERANGED GUNMAN that took the lives of 33 members of "polite society" here in Virginia not 30 miles from where I live and work. His actions are not condoned by the law that guarantees the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, nor by any law, in fact, his actions are abhorred by all. And yet, LAW DID NOT PREVENT THE KILLINGS, because the gunman didn't care. GUNS are not to blame for his derangement or lack of respect for the law or his fellow man...

In his world, he was the judge, juror and executioner and he would have gone to any lengths to fulfill his heinous plan even had he not been able to obtain the guns used from the sources where he did obtained them. No one involved in selling the guns to him had any way, available to them at the time, of knowing the he was a mentally disturbed individual because it is not a crime to be mentally ill, and a criminal background check, checks for exactly that, criminal acts and records. I suppose that this will be the portion of law that will change to prevent anyone who has ever been mentally incapacitated from easily obtaining a firearm AND THAT IS GOOD... We already have guidelines in place that instruct sellers not to sell firearms to obviously disturbed or agitated individuals; but in his case he showed little to no emotion of any kind and the seller couldn't have known. HOWEVER; as with men of evil intent such as he, he very likely would have found another way to fulfill his plan, perhaps a homemade bomb; he had threatened the school anonymously, as we later found out, with bomb threats...

So, if you're looking to find who or what is to blame for this horrendous event, there are plenty of flaws in the system and in human society that failed to dissuade this individual from perpetrating this dastardly deed...

The school was warned by his teachers who witnessed disturbed attitude in his writing and by classmates who were stalked by him... so, IS THE SCHOOL AT FAULT?

The police had him in custody at one time for the stalking of two female classmates and ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination but he was never actually under arrest or charged with anything... The bomb threats could have lead the police to find him out, but the calls were unable to be traced back to him. Had any of these been recorded he would have not been able to obtain firearms from legal vendors or he would have already been in jail... so, ARE THE POLICE AT FAULT? ARE THE DOCTORS WHO EXAMINED HIM AT FAULT? IS THE PHONE COMPANY/SYSTEM AT FAULT?

What about Roommates who ignored the fragile psyche of their peer, not including him, not making him feel an integral part of their shared school experience, not demonstrating tangibly for him brotherly love, or the milk of human kindness that was so missing from his world view… so, ARE HIS ROOMMATES AND INDEED FORMER CLASSMATES AT FAULT?

Had other students been armed, would he have so easily overpowered them? This question has been raised as well. Shouldn’t more people/teachers/students be required to and taught to responsibly handle handguns and be allowed to carry them by permit? Faced with the possibility of being shot for taking another’s life, would that have acted as a deterrent to the gunman? The Rifle Club members on the VT campus have expressed this sentiment and stated that in the very least they would have not have felt so helpless. And had they encountered the gunman themselves they would not have let the rampage continue had they had their own weapon to defend themselves with.

We could attempt to second guess this situation with the benefit of 20/20 vision hindsight, and we may be able to prevent future incidents such as this, but overall the fault for this happening is the fault of every one of us, the fault of human society, chalk it up to human frailty and apathy toward the plight of our fellowman, even those whose physical proximity is closest to us. This gunman exemplifies the worst of human nature, the essence of evil that lies buried in the hearts of all men, yes all men. He, unlike members of "polite society", was unable to control these emotions and failures and had no real outside help to get or keep these under control, nor did he solicit any for he had no self worth.

He is not the first of his kind, and shall not be the last. He is just the WORST of his kind. The truth is: neither guns, nor their availability are to blame; the path this young man chose was his own, he had other paths to choose but did not. He shunned outside influences of any sort and isolated himself until he began to exist only within the paranoia that overwhelmed him and pushed him forward to his own destruction and the destruction of 33 others.

OPINION GRATIS,

Goh

I remember an article in an american magazine (I don't remember which though) which title started with "Canuckistan..." (Canuck = Canada; Istan = Arabian suffix). It was talking about the fact that our borders was a good place for terrorists (add guns, drugs, etc as you like.) to get from outer countries to USA.

I don't know if it is true, but maybe the guns comes from here instead of Mexico. Although this is not good publicity for Canada, I think that the Canadian authorities should investigate that path. If we have some responsabilities in the American black market, we should also take the blame and rise the security.

I also believe that many of them illegal guns are made in the USA and always have been in the USA. The American authorities should also look at themself and take some responsabilities for their underground markets.

I think I'll rent the "Bowling for Columbine" movie. I've never seen it completly. It might help to get other references and other opinions. I liked "Fahrenheit 9/11", but never get the chance to see "Bowling for Columbine".

Since the birth of this great nation, the people of the United States have been overwhelmingly active is assisting other countries, at their request or evidence of their dire straits, in their struggles for stability, peace and justice. The US has been charitably supporting the less-fortunate, has often pulled US allies' arses out of the fire.. and YES, when necessary, with the use of arms against their allies' attackers or oppressors who were also using arms to attack and oppress. Many of the beneficiaries of this assistance have forgotten or ignore the facts and consciously chose to ignore that their lives would be very different today had not the US aided in those countries' struggles of the past... And they criticize the US and look down their noses at its people, forgetting that the RIGHTS they have today that allow them to do so are in large part thanks to the aid received from their benefactor in time of their most desperate need...


Damn bloody ungrateful Iraqis, Iranians, Vietnamese, French, Spanish,Indians, Mexicans, Panamanians,Grenadians,Filipinos:rolleyes:

I'll switch religion. From now on, I'll pray Holy America instead of Jesus-Christ. ;)

Damn bloody ungrateful Iraqis, Iranians, Vietnamese, French, Spanish,Indians, Mexicans, Panamanians,Grenadians,Filipinos:rolleyes:

Yes, the only grateful nation is Japan, whom we bombed hell out of and occupied enough years to establish a firm example. This may be the only way to straighten out the buggers:rolleyes:

In the spirit given,
:D

I'll switch religion. From now on, I'll pray Holy America instead of Jesus-Christ. ;)
__________________
Last night, I was in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and thought to myself, “Where the heck is the ceiling?”


This from someone without even a roof over 'is head

:D

[B]
Since the birth of this great nation, . . . . The US has been charitably supporting the less-fortunate, has often pulled US allies' arses out of the fire.. and YES, when necessary, with the use of arms against their allies' attackers or oppressors who were also using arms to attack and oppress. Many of the beneficiaries of this assistance have forgotten or ignore the facts and consciously chose to ignore that their lives would be very different today had not the US aided in those countries' struggles of the past...

Yes yes, we all worship the USA.:rolleyes: But why is the world a much more dangerous place since 2003?

Col

Yes yes, we all worship the USA.:rolleyes: But why is the world a much more dangerous place since 2003?

Col

But it's safer for Americans, Bush has said so:confused: :rolleyes:

So which bits of the US do I need a gun for protection.?

I can't beleive that you would let a poor tourist walk unsuspecting round a place where the locals think they need guns for protection.

Is Denver OK - do I need a gun there?

Paul - notice how the American posters here point out places like e.g.the seedier parts of New York, or Chicago as being dangerous. Yet they also claim that they have a gun at home for protection.

Therefore, I would conclude that not all the US posters here live in the "gun hotspots" but, as they need a gun for protection in their area, it equates that almost nowhere is safe in the USA, or they wouldn't need a gun for protection.

Why not go self catering in Beirut?

Col

But it's safer for Americans, Bush has said so:confused: :rolleyes:

Only because they've been told to say they're Canadian. Mind you, at £1 = $2 they're not going to like how expensive things are. If they rent a car here, that $2 will buy (approx) 1.75 pints of petrol.

Col

Yes Col, I have come round to the idea that in certain areas of the US, people feel they need a gun for protection, so I guess I will too. (In other areas I have been assured I will be OK.)?

Am I right in thinking in the dangerous/crime ridden places I need a gun for protection, (Crack houses in DC) whereas in more civilised locations I would not. (this should be in the lonely planet guide really!)

Now I just need to know which is which for when I go over - I can either avoid the places where even normal folk live in such fear that they need to carry a gun for protection , as I am not really a danger seeker - or perhaps if its somewhere I really want to go - I could protect myself with packing a pistol.
(Not in the luggage you understand - for some reason the need to arm yourself for protection doesn't apply to flights to the US - its only when you get to the US that protection is needed from those around you)


If I did decide to get a gun rather than miss some of these places - can I as a tourist get a gun?

This is where things don't seem to be consistent.

We're reassured by US posters that what we see on TV news (police beating up people, mass killers on rampage etc) is very rare (there's only been 19 mass killings in the last 10 years).
Yet they feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth with racks of guns at home for protection.:confused:

Denver I heard its the highest airport above sea level? isn't that where John came from?

Col

Denver I heard its the highest airport above sea level? isn't that where John came from?

Wasn't high enough above sea level, if thats where his last flight was from.:(

The other thing to bear in mind, is that the BBC news said that 86 people were killed every day in the USA by guns.

Just keep away from schools and universities

Col

Although I have never felt threatened in the States it is interesting that none of the gun owning Americans have answered Paul's question.

Once in Tallahassee we were warned to keep away from the hotel windows as somebody had been shot through one the week before, I decided that the furthest place away was outside and went for a walk.;)

Denver is approximately at a mile high

Brian

Although I have never felt threatened in the States it is interesting that none of the gun owning Americans have answered Paul's question.

Once in Tallahassee we were warned to keep away from the hotel windows as somebody had been shot through one the week before, I decided that the furthest place away was outside and went for a walk.;)

Denver is approximately at a mile high

Brian

B@*&*y forum is misbehaving again, I think I'll go work on the garden.

Brian

Although I have never felt threatened in the States it is interesting that none of the gun owning Americans have answered Paul's question.From the interplay between he and Col, I was perceiving it as yet another tired vituperation so I was trying to ignore a question that I thought I answered through sarcasm. Against my better judgement, I'll retry.

There are certain places you just do go. They're not on the usual list of tourist destinations and these types of places exist everywhere in the world. When you look at them, you can tell you don't want to be there. When that little voice inside your head says "you sure you want to go down there?" you should probably listen to it. Follow your intuition, and I'm pretty sure you can manage to travel to anywhere in the world (even the Barbaric States) and not have a problem.

Well lets remember here the reason why we have the 2nd amendment, "Right to bear arms" is because of the struggle we had breaking away from England, I believe.

2nd Amendment:

"“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

Here's a excerpt from wiki:

The history and precedent leading to the 2nd Amendment begins several hundred years before its creation, and has it's origin in England. The concept of citizens or "subjects" bearing arms dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obliagted all freemen to possess certain arms for defense. In the following century, King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty to own a weapon other than a knife...

So we may have guns and have it a right to own weapons but history says why...:rolleyes:

When Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns and when all law-abiding citizens are disarmed they shall be at the mercy of those that have guns whenever and wherever those gun owners choose to violate society's RIGHTS under the law.

Quite right. And if more people used explosives to kill innocents then everyone should be issued with explosives, since prolonging the problem clearly makes more sense than attempting to resolve it.


Since the birth of this great nation, the people of the United States have been overwhelmingly active is assisting other countries, at their request or evidence of their dire straits
..or, indeed, after having sat back and done f**k-all to help, for over a year, while a war raged across many 'allied' countries. Joining in only once they were attacked themselves.

with the use of arms against their allies' attackers or oppressors who were also using arms to attack and oppress. Many of the beneficiaries of this assistance have forgotten or ignore the facts and consciously chose to ignore that their lives would be very different today had not the US aided in those countries' struggles of the past... And they criticize the US and look down their noses at its people, forgetting that the RIGHTS they have today that allow them to do so are in large part thanks to the aid received from their benefactor in time of their most desperate need

Indeed, we should thank Japan more often, since if it weren't for them the 'great' US might have sat back and done nothing for the entire course of WWII, as opposed to just the first quarter of it.

Had other students been armed, would he have so easily overpowered them? This question has been raised as well. Shouldn’t more people/teachers/students be required to and taught to responsibly handle handguns and be allowed to carry them by permit? Faced with the possibility of being shot for taking another’s life, would that have acted as a deterrent to the gunman?
Probably not - as you observed, he was mentally deranged.

The Rifle Club members on the VT campus have expressed this sentiment and stated that in the very least they would have not have felt so helpless. And had they encountered the gunman themselves they would not have let the rampage continue had they had their own weapon to defend themselves with.

And if more people used explosives to kill innocents then everyone should be issued with explosives, etc. etc.

The truth is: neither guns, nor their availability are to blame; the path this young man chose was his own, he had other paths to choose but did not. He shunned outside influences of any sort and isolated himself until he began to exist only within the paranoia that overwhelmed him and pushed him forward to his own destruction and the destruction of 33 others.

No, but the number might have been significantly lower if he'd been killing by hand.

So we may have guns and have it a right to own weapons but history says why...:rolleyes:

But most civilised countries are nolonger living in the 12th or even 18th centuries, you may also have noticed that handguns and rifles are not being used by the insurgents in Iraq.

Brian

Paul, if I understand this quote correctly, you shouldn't go to the USA at all. They are all waiting for you!:D Well lets remember here the reason why we have the 2nd amendment, "Right to bear arms" is because of the struggle we had breaking away from England, I believe.

..or, indeed, after having sat back and done f**k-all to help, for over a year, while a war raged across many 'allied' countries. Joining in only once they were attacked themselves.

Munich Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement) :rolleyes:

Bodi
I think the point Paul was trying to make is that if all (most?) Americans own guns for protection it mustn't be safe anywhere, therefore should a tourist have a gun.

Brian

Paul - notice how the American posters here point out places like e.g.the seedier parts of New York, or Chicago as being dangerous. Yet they also claim that they have a gun at home for protection.

Therefore, I would conclude that not all the US posters here live in the "gun hotspots" but, as they need a gun for protection in their area, it equates that almost nowhere is safe in the USA, or they wouldn't need a gun for protection.

Why not go self catering in Beirut?

Col
Col, you're missing the logical process, that's all.
Guns = Dangerous
More Guns = Safety

Why are you having trouble following that?:confused:

This is where things don't seem to be consistent.

We're reassured by US posters that what we see on TV news (police beating up people, mass killers on rampage etc) is very rare (there's only been 19 mass killings in the last 10 years).
Yet they feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth with racks of guns at home for protection.:confused:



Once again, Col, missing the logical process.
I have a gun.
Bad things don't happen to me.
Therefore, having a gun is preventing bad things from happening to me.

I use much the same system to prevent crocodile attacks.
Every day, I throw a balled-up tissue down into my basement.
Every night, I clear it up.
Have I ever been attacked by a crocodile?
I think the results speak for themselves.

From the interplay between he and Col, I was perceiving it as yet another tired vituperation so I was trying to ignore a question that I thought I answered through sarcasm. Against my better judgement, I'll retry.

Its a simple question, one which as you said you only answered with sarcasm.


There are certain places you just do go. They're not on the usual list of tourist destinations and these types of places exist everywhere in the world. When you look at them, you can tell you don't want to be there. When that little voice inside your head says "you sure you want to go down there?" you should probably listen to it. Follow your intuition, and I'm pretty sure you can manage to travel to anywhere in the world (even the Barbaric States) and not have a problem.

So I need a gun only in places like above, if thats true for me it must be true for the average american too, so anywhere where people have guns for protection is a dodgy, dangerous and threatening area where you wouldn't want to be? And owning guns for protection is quite common isn't it?

Follow your intuition, and I'm pretty sure you can manage to travel to anywhere in the world (even the Barbaric States) and not have a problem Why would I be safer than all those who feel the need for a gun?(Baring in mind I will be visiting my mate at college there)

Munich Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement) :rolleyes:


Point being?
Whch of Britain's allies had been at war for over a year before we joined in to help?
At what point did Germany attack us, forcing us to enter the war to defend ourselves?
What about Canada, Auastralia NZ, etc? When were they attacked?

Point being?
Whch of Britain's allies had been at war for over a year before we joined in to help?
At what point did Germany attack us, forcing us to enter the war to defend ourselves?
What about Canada, Auastralia NZ, etc? When were they attacked?

Last attack in Canada was when Americans invaded Montreal in 1775. (Although we weren't "Canada" yet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281775%29

Once again, Col, missing the logical process.
I have a gun.
Bad things don't happen to me.
Therefore, having a gun is preventing bad things from happening to me.
thats the point. You have a gun. Therefore, your area must be one of the danger areas otherwise you wouldn't need a gun.

I use much the same system to prevent crocodile attacks.
Every day, I throw a balled-up tissue down into my basement.
Every night, I clear it up.
Have I ever been attacked by a crocodile?
I think the results speak for themselves.
you've lost me with this:confused: what on earth has a crocodile got to do with a screwed up Kleenex:confused:

Col

...So I need a gun only in places like above, ... people have guns for protection ...And owning guns for protection is quite common isn't it...safer than all those who feel the need for a gunYou keep missing the point. Yes, one of the reasons people may cite to own guns is for protection. I do not own guns for protection. I don't know anyone that does. Guns have many uses, ONE of them is indeed protection. This does not equate to every gun owner sitting in their home, drenched in a cold sweat, in mortal fear of the next bad-guy that will attempt to break in to our bars-on-the-windows, doors-chained, alarm-riddled, barbed-wired, EMP hardened, nuclear-bunker-type domiciles.

You Brits tend to be much more paranoid, and negative, than any American I know:rolleyes:

Col

ALC's post was a nice piece of mickey taking, I'm amazed you missed it.

Brian

Guns have many uses, ONE of them is indeed protection.

a gun is specifically designed and is built purely to kill something.

Col

thats the point. You have a gun. Therefore, your area must be one of the danger areas otherwise you wouldn't need a gun.


you've lost me with this:confused: what on earth has a crocodile got to do with a screwed up Kleenex:confused:

Col

I was being facetious.
I do one thing, something else doesn't happen, therefore I must be causing it to not happen.

I guess I should start using more smileys in my posts.

Bodi it is not our fault if we misunderstand why you all have guns, the American posters keep telling us it is for protection, if it is not then please tell us why.

Brian

Col

ALC's post was a nice piece of mickey taking, I'm amazed you missed it.

Brian

Thankyou, sir.
I was getting worried, then.

I had this image of Col typing 'Crocodile' and 'Kleenex' into Google.

I joke from a French-Canadian standup comic:
"America is one of the best place to visit in the whole world. It would have been the best place if it wasn't full of Americans.":P

Thankyou, sir.
I was getting worried, then.

I had this image of Col typing 'Crocodile' and 'Kleenex' into Google.

Isn't it marshmallows that they like, atleast those in the Bayous of New Orleans, or are they Alligators?

Brian

Thankyou, sir.
I was getting worried, then.

I had this image of Col typing 'Crocodile' and 'Kleenex' into Google.

Ok, fair enough, I missed it. I'm not feeling myself today:eek:

Its the old "keep elephants away stick" - but there's no elephants round here - yes, works a treat doesn't it.:rolleyes:

Col

Ok, fair enough, I missed it. I'm not feeling myself today:eek:
Col

That'll make you go blind. :D

Brian

Isn't it marshmallows that they like, atleast those in the Bayous of New Orleans, or are they Alligators?

Brian

No, you're right, it's probably marshmallows.
(alligators being too large to throw)

a gun is specifically designed and is built purely to kill something.Actually it is specifically designed to propel a projectile at significant velocity toward an intended target with a (hopefully) high degree of accuracy. People like you are convinced that means to "kill" something.
Bodi it is not our fault if we misunderstand why you all have guns, the American posters keep telling us it is for protection, if it is not then please tell us why.I have, Brian. Several times.

You keep missing the point. Yes, one of the reasons people may cite to own guns is for protection. I do not own guns for protection. I don't know anyone that does. Guns have many uses, ONE of them is indeed protection. This does not equate to every gun owner sitting in their home, drenched in a cold sweat, in mortal fear of the next bad-guy that will attempt to break in to our bars-on-the-windows, doors-chained, alarm-riddled, barbed-wired, EMP hardened, nuclear-bunker-type domiciles.


Well ok, maybe my original question is best answered by some americans who do think that guns are for protection. There is definately the opinion about that having a gun would have made the students at VT safer -


Is there anyone in the US who would recommend I have a gun for safety when I visit my mate who will be at college over there?

No, you're right, it's probably marshmallows.
(alligators being too large to throw)

LMAO

The boss has ordered me back to the garden cheers for now

Brian

Yes Col, I have come round to the idea that in certain areas of the US, people feel they need a gun for protection, so I guess I will too. (In other areas I have been assured I will be OK.)?

Am I right in thinking in the dangerous/crime ridden places I need a gun for protection, (Crack houses in DC) whereas in more civilised locations I would not. (this should be in the lonely planet guide really!)

Now I just need to know which is which for when I go over - I can either avoid the places where even normal folk live in such fear that they need to carry a gun for protection , as I am not really a danger seeker - or perhaps if its somewhere I really want to go - I could protect myself with packing a pistol.
(Not in the luggage you understand - for some reason the need to arm yourself for protection doesn't apply to flights to the US - its only when you get to the US that protection is needed from those around you)


If I did decide to get a gun rather than miss some of these places - can I as a tourist get a gun?

I guess the most logical, safest suggestion is just stay where you are. That may take all the fun out of your sarcastic statements but it should take all of your deep concerns away.

Actually it is specifically designed to propel a projectile at significant velocity toward an intended target with a (hopefully) high degree of accuracy. People like you are convinced that means to "kill" something.


Yes, and a football is specifically designed to hold air within a leather case. However, the reason behind that design is to allow sport to be played.

Guns were invented to allow one person to better kill another.
http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms_2.htm

I guess the most logical, safest suggestion is just stay where you are. That may take all the fun out of your sarcastic statements but it should take all of your deep concerns away.

You should put that in the tourist brochure!


The statements are not sarcastic - if americans need a gun for protection do I need one. Its the americans who cannot tell me clearly if I need a gun or not. (Only Bodi has offered his opinion which I value - but it seems to be at odds with other opinions of the onwership of guns)

I just want clarification. Not much to ask as a guest of your country is it?:rolleyes:

You should put that in the tourist brochure!


The statements are not sarcastic - if americans need a gun for protection do I need one. Its the americans who cannot tell me clearly if I need a gun or not. (Only Bodi has offered his opinion which I value - but it seems to be at odds with other opinions of the onwership of guns)

I just want clarification. Not much to ask as a guest of your country is it?:rolleyes:

I don't own a gun. Have never bought a gun, and I don't think I'm the only American who can say this. I've never been shot. Have never had a gun pointed at me. You can take any topic and run with it to make it look however you want it to look. To ask if you need a gun when and if you come to visit us, in my opinion, is just being sarcastic.

Yes, and a football is specifically designed to hold air within a leather case. sounds like certain craniums...:rolleyes:


And nuclear fission was originally developed to vaporize Nazis and Japanese. Most modern technological advances were developed in one form or another by or as a byproduct of the military from microwaves to nuclear power, but they also find applications in the private sector that are normally quite different from their military beginnings.

Paul - I think you need to have a "green card" to get a gun from a supplier in the USA.
If memory serves correct, John Lennon had huge problems getting one.

You will be then classed (as the American cop said on TV) as "a legal alien"

So your bid to waltz down main street like Wyatt Earp could be a non-starter anyway.

I may be wrong, but I'm sure there are many in the wings who will gladly point this out.:rolleyes:

Col

I don't own a gun. Have never bought a gun, and I don't think I'm the only American who can say this. I've never been shot. Have never had a gun pointed at me. You can take any topic and run with it to make it look however you want it to look. To ask if you need a gun when and if you come to visit us, in my opinion, is just being sarcastic.

Me neither.


I guess if you believe I'm being sarcastic (I am genuinely not), you reckon anyone who says they need a gun for protection in the US is talking rubbish.

Me neither.


I guess if you believe I'm being sarcastic (I am genuinely not), you reckon anyone who says they need a gun for protection in the US is talking rubbish.


No, but when I hear they need one for protection, then what goes through my mind is they need it if someone breaks into their home, as an example. I'm sure you have had that though go across your mind where you live and more than likely you have something prepared in case they do. Such as a baseball bat, maybe. Here, guns are legal so residents buy guns to protect their families and property. I guess having access to a gun to protect yourself with is the part that bothers you.

No, but when I hear they need one for protection, then what goes through my mind is they need it if someone breaks into their home, as an example. I'm sure you have had that though go across your mind where you live and more than likely you have something prepared in case they do. Such as a baseball bat, maybe. Here, guns are legal so residents buy guns to protect their families and property. I guess having access to a gun to protect yourself with is the part that bothers you.

I will have a home even only a temporary one for the 3-4 weeks I am there.

I am still no clearer on the subject, as I say maybe its better someone who does believe in guns for protection answers.

How prevelent would that belief be?

sounds like certain craniums...:rolleyes:


And nuclear fission was originally developed to vaporize Nazis and Japanese. Most modern technological advances were developed in one form or another by or as a byproduct of the military from microwaves to nuclear power, but they also find applications in the private sector that are normally quite different from their military beginnings.

So you feel that the difference between the reason guns were originally designed is sufficiently different from the way in which they are now designed that a comparison can be drawn between them and the other inventions you listed? Let's see.

Microwaves - Initially used to harm people, now used to cook food.
Nuclear fusion - Initially used to harm people, now provides energy.
Guns - Initially used to harm people....now?
Or are there special guns you're referring to, that do something entirely different? Perhaps they help around the home or provide cheap power to cities?

The fact that some people choose to use them for something other than what they were originally intended for is beside the point. What about the way some people trot out the old 'more people die from car accidents than from guns' bit every time someone gets shot? The difference there being that the deaths caused by cars were when people used the car for something other than it's intended purpose, the deaths from guns were the reverse.

Paul, this'll cheer you up.

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation.ref BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm)

and I've been misquoting - I thought it was 86 people killed on average per day by the gun in USA - it's actually only 82

Shane - I don't have anything "prepared" in case someone breaks in and I don't know anyone that has. It's not something we're paranoid about.

I will say however, (to try to balance things) that I have security lights round the back garden that respond to movement. Also I have a lock on the garage door.

Security lights are good but are always coming on due to cats, hedgehogs, mice etc

Col

Point being?

Simple, during your discussion on gun ownership you decided to talk about the US's (non) involvement in WW2. I simply pointed out the extent to which the UK went to not get involved either. ie. The sacrifice of most of Czechoslovakia.

You berate the US for the exact same treatment you afforded the Czechs.

Paul - I think you need to have a "green card" to get a gun from a supplier in the USA.
If memory serves correct, John Lennon had huge problems getting one.


That's a pity, since - as pointed out by many posters - if he had owned one, he'd have been saved. :rolleyes:
(getting the hang of the smileys)

Paul, this'll cheer you up.

ref BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm)

and I've been misquoting - I thought it was 86 people killed on average per day by the gun in USA - it's actually only 82

Shane - I don't have anything "prepared" in case someone breaks in and I don't know anyone that has. It's not something we're paranoid about.

I will say however, (to try to balance things) that I have security lights round the back garden that respond to movement. Also I have a lock on the garage door.

Security lights are good but are always coming on due to cats, hedgehogs, mice etc

Col

Hey Col,

Don't know that I necessarily mean "prepared" like something hanging over the bed. I think my reference is more to the fact that no matter where any of us live, we have folks in our society who are just plain mean. Steal, lie, whatever suits them, so with that being said, I have asked myself several times "what if someone came to my family with bad intent. What would I do?" I don't have a baseball bat, gun or anything but sometimes I wonder if I should. I don't think America is the only country that has part of their society who decide to take whats not theirs.

That's a pity, since - as pointed out by many posters - if he had owned one, he'd have been saved. :rolleyes:
(getting the hang of the smileys)

He was shot in the back 4 times by a cowardly American. He had no chance ref BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_2536000/2536321.stm)

Col

Simple, during your discussion on gun ownership you decided to talk about the US's (non) involvement in WW2. I simply pointed out the extent to which the UK went to not get involved either. ie. The sacrifice of most of Czechoslovakia.

You berate the US for the exact same treatment you afforded the Czechs.

My comments were made in direct response to the lengthy story written by the original poster, where he harped on about the 'great' US having a history of coming to the aid of it's allies and how they should remember to be grateful.

When the UK and it's allies entered the second world war, it was before having been attacked. When the 'great' country eventually entered, it was only in self-defence.

The point I'm making is that if I watched someone beat you up for an hour and did nothing about it, I would have little reason to expect you to see me as some kindly benefactor if I later fought alongside you as a result of defending myself from another attack.

I don't remember anyone ever saying that the Czech people should be grateful to the British, but I constantly hear the whole 'You'd be speaking German if it weren't for us' routine from certain 'great' countries.

Hey Col,

Don't know that I necessarily mean "prepared" like something hanging over the bed. I think my reference is more to the fact that no matter where any of us live, we have folks in our society who are just plain mean. Steal, lie, whatever suits them, so with that being said, I have asked myself several times "what if someone came to my family with bad intent. What would I do?" I don't have a baseball bat, gun or anything but sometimes I wonder if I should. I don't think America is the only country that has part of their society who decide to take whats not theirs.

Sure we have crime here. Whats it got to do with gun ownership?

That's a pity, since - as pointed out by many posters - if he had owned one, he'd have been saved. :rolleyes:
(getting the hang of the smileys)

John Lennon of course is one of a long list of Brits who have enjoyed life in the US to such a degree as to purchase homes here. Money talks as they say.

He was shot in the back 4 times by a cowardly American. He had no chance ref BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_2536000/2536321.stm)

Col

Irrelevant. Have you not been paying attention? If he owned a gun and had been 'properly trained' in it's use, he'd have been indestructible.

The fact that some people choose to use them for something other than what they were originally intended for is beside the point. . That is EXACTLY the point. 95% of the guns in my locked and secured cabinet were most certainly NOT designed to kill people. They are hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Their designs are a matter of function and differ substantially from military or asssault type weapons. I also have several guns that are designed specifically for target shooting. Their shape and form is even more different than that of my hunting equipment and those guns in particular were not designed to kill anything.

My guns, as well as those of the people I know, are used for precisely what they were intended for. Despite Hollywood's best efforts to portray the contrary, Americans don't all have nickel plated 45's on our hips or M16s in the closets.

Hey Col,

Don't know that I necessarily mean "prepared" like something hanging over the bed. I think my reference is more to the fact that no matter where any of us live, we have folks in our society who are just plain mean. Steal, lie, whatever suits them, so with that being said, I have asked myself several times "what if someone came to my family with bad intent. What would I do?" I don't have a baseball bat, gun or anything but sometimes I wonder if I should. I don't think America is the only country that has part of their society who decide to take whats not theirs.
We have burglaries here too. It's general these days in the UK to have double-glazed windows and doors (for insulation) but these also come with deadlocks which are extremely hard to break through.

Our houses are built with bricks - not the flimsy US wooden type that blow down in Florida. So taking a chain saw to a house in the UK would be ineffective.

The best burglar deterrant? get a dog, no question. Any burglar trying to break in would go deaf with the barking dog.;) Our Border Collie was brilliant at "warning us" of possible danger - he always got it wrong though, but at least he was alert.

Col

Sure we have crime here. Whats it got to do with gun ownership?

Thought you said "as I say maybe its better someone who does believe in guns for protection answers"? I didn't say it had anything to do with gun ownership. What I did say is that every country has crime and I would think that most folks would at sometime or another think how would I or could I protect myself if that was to happen to me. I just so happens here, guns are legal, so folks buy guns to accomplish this. Guns are not legal where you live so you use a garden hose, bat, stick, something, I'm sure.

That is EXACTLY the point. 95% of the guns in my locked and secured cabinet were most certainly NOT designed to kill people. They are hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Their designs are a matter of function and differ substantially from military or asssault type weapons. I also have several guns that are designed specifically for target shooting. Their shape and form is even more different than that of my hunting equipment and those guns in particular were not designed to kill anything.

My guns, as well as those of the people I know, are used for precisely what they were intended for. Despite Hollywood's best efforts to portray the contrary, Americans don't all have nickel plated 45's on our hips or M16s in the closets.

82 dead a day according to Col, thats quite a few.

My comments were made in direct response to the lengthy story written by the original poster, where he harped on about the 'great' US having a history of coming to the aid of it's allies and how they should remember to be grateful.

...and your comments were responded to by me.


When the UK and it's allies entered the second world war, it was before having been attacked. When the 'great' country eventually entered, it was only in self-defence.

I hate to tell you this but the UK's entrance into WW2 was not an altruistic act. It came after the realisation that the selling off of lands (which they did not own) to an aggressor was not going to stop them from being attacked themselves. It was an act of complete self-defense.


The point I'm making is that if I watched someone beat you up for an hour and did nothing about it, I would have little reason to expect you to see me as some kindly benefactor if I later fought alongside you as a result of defending myself from another attack.

I'm not attempting to defend the US's delay in entering WW2. I'm saying "people in glass houses..."


I don't remember anyone ever saying that the Czech people should be grateful to the British, but I constantly hear the whole 'You'd be speaking German if it weren't for us' routine from certain 'great' countries.

I hear alot of talk from Brits about how bad the US is but very little about famines in the Raj, concentration camps in South Africa, the Munich 'dictate', Anglo-Afghan wars, involvement in Gulf and Iraq wars etc etc...

Despite Hollywood's best efforts to portray the contrary, Americans don't all have nickel plated 45's on our hips or M16s in the closets.

But I bet alot do. I hear its common in the US to keep a loaded gun in the glove box in the car in case of a carjacking or robbery attempt.

Col

I didn't say it had anything to do with gun ownership.

I didn't think it was particularly relevent either. (or schools for that matter)

We have burglaries here too. It's general these days in the UK to have double-glazed windows and doors (for insulation) but these also come with deadlocks which are extremely hard to break through.

Our houses are built with bricks - not the flimsy US wooden type that blow down in Florida. So taking a chain saw to a house in the UK would be ineffective.

The best burglar deterrant? get a dog, no question. Any burglar trying to break in would go deaf with the barking dog.;) Our Border Collie was brilliant at "warning us" of possible danger - he always got it wrong though, but at least he was alert.

Col

That's odd. I live here and didn't know we had "flimsy US wooden type" houses. Now not even our wood or our houses are good. I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and while I can't give you as exact percentage of brick verses siding homes, I would have to say brick has to go far beyond siding. Mine is log so I guess someone could take a chainsaw to it, if they really wanted to spent that much time getting through the wall. I would suggest breaking a window, though, it would be much faster. As far as a dog goes. Got four of them. My blonde lab barks at her own tail, so I think by now we are so use to her barking that a thief could walk up and tap me on the shoulder before I would know he/she was around.:D

But I bet alot do. I hear its common in the US to keep a loaded gun in the glove box in the car in case of a carjacking or robbery attempt.

Where for Christsakes??? Must look at the itinery again.:mad:

I hear alot of talk from Brits about how bad the US is but very little about famines in the Raj, concentration camps in South Africa, the Munich 'dictate', Anglo-Afghan wars, involvement in Gulf and Iraq wars etc etc...

The Raj? India went independent in 1948. Are you referring to current issues? or adopting the usual USA approach and going back centuries to find something

We built the UK and its Empire on slavery - so what? It was all the rage back then.

Col

I hate to tell you this but the UK's entrance into WW2 was not an altruistic act. It came after the realisation that the selling off of lands (which they did not own) to an aggressor was not going to stop them from being attacked themselves. It was an act of complete self-defense.
I never claimed altruism (and please don't presume to lecture me on my own country's past, I've met enough Americans to know which side of the Atlantic has a better grasp on history). I said we didn't sit back and do nothing until we were attacked so take offence at told we should be grateful to countries that did.


I hear alot of talk from Brits about how bad the US is but very little about famines in the Raj, concentration camps in South Africa, the Munich 'dictate', Anglo-Afghan wars, involvement in Gulf and Iraq wars etc etc...

Then you're talking to the wrong people. It was all covered in school in the UK and, unlike certain countries, there's no attempt to gloss over what we did.

The Raj? India went independent in 1948. Are you referring to current issues? or adopting the usual USA approach and going back centuries to find something

We built the UK and its Empire on slavery - so what? It was all the rage back then.

Col

I know you're not very interested in history Col, it's why you haven't got a clue as to why the world is as it is now. :rolleyes:

That's odd. I live here and didn't know we had "flimsy US wooden type" houses.

Thats because every time there's a hurricane, they get blown down, don't you see them all destroyed on the news?

Col

I know you're not very interested in history Col, it's why you haven't got a clue as to why the world is as it is now. :rolleyes:

Oh right, so it's our fault that the USA has so many mass killers and gun deaths:rolleyes:

Glad we got that straight

Col

Thats because every time there's a hurricane, they get blown down, don't you see them all destroyed on the news?

Col

Oh, I see what your talking about now. Our homes that are somewhere around 100 or more years old. Are your homes that are that old built out of brick?

I never claimed altruism (and please don't presume to lecture me on my own country's past, I've met enough Americans to know which side of the Atlantic has a better grasp on history).

So you assume authority on the subject do you :rolleyes:


I said we didn't sit back and do nothing until we were attacked so take offence at told we should be grateful to countries that did.

No, British policy was not to sit back at all. Rather, try and feed the hungry aggressor with spoils of war, that it did not have the right to give in the first place. Then in this context you try and give this hogwash story that Britain entered WW2 not to defend itself but it's more unfortunate european neighbors. The Czechs don't see it that way and neither do I.



Then you're talking to the wrong people.

Now this point I can agree with :D

82 dead a day according to Col, thats quite a few.301,654,567 as of 14:42GMT today, 82 per...that's one in 3,678,714 people...I don't know that many people, so my original statement stands. (and lets not forget that accidents do happen and not all of those deaths are violent crime related)
But I bet alot do. I hear its common in the US to keep a loaded gun in the glove box in the car in case of a carjacking or robbery attempt.Don't know any of those, either. I do hear that the unfortunate fellows that are responsible for carrying out repossessions on automobiles carry guns for protection...but I don't know any, so I couldn't help you there either. I'm sensing a pattern here, guys...either I'm not your stereotypical American, or your stereotypical American isn't a stereotypical American. I'm betting on the latter.:rolleyes:

Where for Christsakes??? Must look at the itinery again.:mad:

Forgot to warn you on that part Paul. Have you seen any of our western movies? Cowboys riding on horses and shooting at each other? Well, we still do that it's just that we use cars going down the freeway now.

Oh right, so it's our fault that the USA has so many mass killers and gun deaths:rolleyes:

Glad we got that straight

Col

I didn't say that you were to blame for anything. I'm just telling you as to why you're so confused as to what's going on all the time.

So you assume authority on the subject do you :rolleyes:
Not at all, just don't use the fallback of stating the obvious and preceding it with something along the lines of 'I hate to be the one to tell you this...'.


The Czechs don't see it that way and neither do I.

So you not only speak for the US but for the Czechs, too? Must keep you busy.

301,654,567 as of 14:42GMT today, 82 per...that's one in 3,678,714 people

Thats alright then!

And only 32 at VT? Glad we have things in perspective. Irrelevent really, don't know what the fuss is!

Not at all, just don't use the fallback of stating the obvious and preceding it with something along the lines of 'I hate to be the one to tell you this...'.

So now it's an obvious fact that the UK entered the war solely for it's own defence. Good I'm glad you see it my way ;)



So you not only speak for the US but for the Czechs, too? Must keep you busy.

Who said I spoke for the US :confused: Resorting to strawman arguments are we? ;)

Oh and by the way, if you're historical schooling is as thorough as you claim then you'd know that the Munich agreement is commonly referred to as the Munich dictate in Czechoslovakia. Hope that's not too obvious for ya:cool:

Thats alright then!

And only 32 at VT? Glad we have things in perspective. Irrelevent really, don't know what the fuss is!neither do I

I have never met a British person who is proud of Munich, the best anybody offers is that we were buying time.
At school we were taught that we should have either
a) Defended Czechoslovakia, which was much better prepared than Poland
or
b) stayed away

but we did have treaties to honour so we honoured them, even after that great nation across the pond had screwed every brass farthing out of us.

What I object to is not that the US stayed out of the war until attacked, but that so many Americans seem to think that they mounted their white chargers and rode to our rescue for altuistic reasons , that long diatribe earlier even talked about "rescuing allies" , erm isn't that what one does?

Brian

neither do I

Shootings in US school - who's arsed!

Its just statistics of a crazed foreigner really- who could have used a toothbrush.

I'm glad a gun owning yank helped me reach that perspective.

I have never met a British person who is proud of Munich, the best anybody offers is that we were buying time.

I've never heard of any American being proud of the US's delay either. It's just kind of glossed over because it's not very palatable.


What I object to is not that the US stayed out of the war until attacked, but that so many Americans seem to think that they mounted their white chargers and rode to our rescue for altuistic reasons , that long diatribe earlier even talked about "rescuing allies" , erm isn't that what one does?

Can't disagree with you on that one Bri. What do you think would have happened though if Chamberlain was the US president at the time, given his actions before he entered WW2?

No, British policy was not to sit back at all. Rather, try and feed the hungry aggressor with spoils of war, that it did not have the right to give in the first place. Then in this context you try and give this hogwash story that Britain entered WW2 not to defend itself but it's more unfortunate european neighbors. The Czechs don't see it that way and neither do I.





Unlike the Americans with the Phillipines, Texas, Panama,Hawaii, etc. who's lecturing who on the spoils of war, you're having a laugh, surely?

Unlike the Americans with the Phillipines, Texas, Panama,Hawaii, etc. who's lecturing who on the spoils of war, you're having a laugh, surely?

I think you'll find that was my original point. :rolleyes:

So which bits of the US do I need a gun for protection.?

I can't beleive that you would let a poor tourist walk unsuspecting round a place where the locals think they need guns for protection.

Is Denver OK - do I need a gun there?

If you're driving through Washington, make sure the doors are locked if you stop at traffic lights

If you're driving through Washington, make sure the doors are locked if you stop at traffic lights

I wouldn't take any notice of Rich's advice, it's all hearsay :p

If you're driving through Washington, make sure the doors are locked if you stop at traffic lights

That would be more applicable to Johannesburg rather than Washington.
In Jo'burg, they carhack one person per 2 hours, as the stats say.

Its just statistics of a crazed foreigner really- who could have used a toothbrush.

I'm glad a gun owning yank helped me reach that perspective.Actually, Paul, most of us are upset that we weren't there to scream "Remember Pearl!" (those Asians all look alike to us, you know) and dive headlong into the carnage with guns blazing, to exact vengence upon the heathen and smite him down with our righteous and divine, black-powder retribution.:rolleyes:

If you're driving through Washington, make sure the doors are locked if you stop at traffic lights

Better not even stop at the red lights. Push the gas pedal to the floor.:rolleyes:

Better not even stop at the red lights. Push the gas pedal to the floor.:rolleyes:nah...that only works if you're the Mayor...

Actually, Paul, most of us are upset that we weren't there to scream "Remember Pearl!" (those Asians all look alike to us, you know) and dive headlong into the carnage with guns blazing, to exact vengence upon the heathen and smite him down with our righteous and divine, black-powder retribution.:rolleyes:


Now that's sarcasm :D

Now that's sarcasm :D

Careful, some of our colleagues across the pond might see it not as sarcasm like it was intended but as another of our gun ho (which is actually gung ho) attitudes towards persons who are not of our persuasion. :p

persuasion. :p


That beast has been hunted to extinction along time ago :D

I wouldn't take any notice of Rich's advice, it's all hearsay :p

Oddly enough that was one of the reasons a former female American aquaintance of mine gave for fleeing Washington many many years ago, still in the land of progress I expect it's all changed now:rolleyes:

So now it's an obvious fact that the UK entered the war solely for it's own defence. Good I'm glad you see it my way ;)





Good lord! I know Americans are not renowned for their grasp of history and for actually re-writing history for their own benefit but really, Britain went to war because Germany invaded Poland, a country that Britain and France had signed an alliance with, America went to war because the Japs pissed on their fire:rolleyes:

That would be more applicable to Johannesburg rather than Washington.
In Jo'burg, they carhack one person per 2 hours, as the stats say.

Yes SA does have a problem but then so does the country and city we're talking about

The United States Department of Justice estimates that in about half of all carjacking attempts, the attacker succeeds in stealing the victim's car. It estimated that, between 1987 and 1992, about 35,000 carjacking attempts took place per year, and, between 1992 and 1996, about 49,000 attempts took place per year. Carjacking has become more frequent in recent years because sophisticated devices and computer systems have prevented and discouraged theft of unattended cars.

Good lord! I know Americans are not renowned for their grasp of history and for actually re-writing history for their own benefit but really, Britain went to war because Germany invaded Poland, a country that Britain and France had signed an alliance with, America went to war because the Japs pissed on their fire:rolleyes:

Who's re-writing history? The alliance with Poland was simply to prevent the expansion of the Nazi regime. It was a defensive measure, pure and simple.

Who's re-writing history? The alliance with Poland was simply to prevent the expansion of the Nazi regime. It was a defensive measure, pure and simple.

No it wasn't seen as defensive at the time, it was to help protect our European allies, not us initially, pure and simple?

No it wasn't seen as defensive at the time,

Oh please ...:rolleyes:


it was to help protect our European allies, not us initially, pure and simple?

Then how come Czechoslovakia didn't get the same treatment, did they not qualify?

Oh please ...:rolleyes:



Then how come Czechoslovakia didn't get the same treatment, did they not qualify?

O please, we were not in a position to do anything about it at the time, I'm sure I've explained all this to you before but we're not a gun ho country, at the time a political solution was being sought. And don't bellitle a response just 'cause you don't like the message, again it was not seen at the time as a defensive measure, unlike you they did not have the benefit of hindsight

O please, we were not in a position to do anything about it at the time, I'm sure I've explained all this to you before but we're not a gun ho country, at the time a political solution was being sought. And don't bellitle a response just 'cause you don't like the message, again it was not seen at the time as a defensive measure, unlike you they did not have the benefit of hindsight

No they had the benefit of foresight :rolleyes:

"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

No they had the benefit of foresight :rolleyes:

[I]"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat..]

Hindsight, and oddly enough here's an educated Americans view why
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson65.html

Hindsight, and oddly enough here's an educated Americans view why
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson65.html

"Yet, none of those who engaged in the negotiations at Munich in 1938 – no matter what we may think of them today – had the privilege of being clairvoyant."

Good grief has this silly American not heard of Anschluss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss)

"Yet, none of those who engaged in the negotiations at Munich in 1938 – no matter what we may think of them today – had the privilege of being clairvoyant."

Good grief has this silly American not heard of Anschluss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss)

Again you're clutching at straws, even if the had full knowledge of Anschluss, no one could have foreseen the horrific events that were to follow, again the benefit of hindsight.

Again you're clutching at straws, even if the had full knowledge of Anschluss, no one could have foreseen the horrific events that were to follow, again the benefit of hindsight.

They were foreseen, decades earlier by the wording of the Treaty of Versailles if the Rhineland was remilitarised. The politicians at the time had all the hindsight they needed. It's not me clutching at straws.

It's not me clutching at straws.

Yes it is, why didn't America prevent the invasion of S.Korea?:rolleyes:

Yes it is, why didn't America prevent the invasion of S.Korea?:rolleyes:

If in doubt, misdirect :rolleyes:

Yes it is, why didn't America prevent the invasion of S.Korea?:rolleyes:

No-one actually knew where it was

Col

If in doubt, misdirect :rolleyes:

No I'm merely pointing out the fallacy you present

To bring the thread back to the shootings.

Paul - try and avoid Texas - it seems they have crazed gunmen there too

NASA gunman (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6578167.stm)

Could one of the American posters say if it's possible for a tourist to buy a gun?

Col

To bring the thread back to the shootings.

Paul - try and avoid Texas - it seems they have crazed gunmen there too


Col

It would seem that the problem exists everywhere in the states, but since "guns don't kill" it would be best to avoid the people:eek:

It would seem that the problem exists everywhere in the states, but since "guns don't kill" it would be best to avoid the people:eek:

It said on the BBC news last night that "America is grieving" for the 32 students killed:rolleyes:

I wonder if "America is grieving" for the 328 people killed by the gun since last monday. Or is it just selective grieving?
Maybe if say, >5 are killed in one place, that counts differently.

Col

Could one of the American posters say if it's possible for a tourist to buy a gun?

Col

No tourists are only allowed to bare arms

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

There is a lot of confusion on these boards as to why americans own guns - so I though I would share this link -

Theres plenty with handguns for self defence - so clearly large parts of the US are so dangerous that the locals need a gun for their own safety.

Or the US has a lot of paranoids with guns.

I don't share you conclusions Paul, it would appear that gun ownership is not as widespread as some posters would have us believe with two thirds of American homes having no gun at all, which, when one considers how many guns are held for sport, is a much higher figure than expected.

Brian

Hi Brian , I clearly interpret the stats differantly to you.

38% of households and 57 million adults with a gun seems a lot to me.

40% are handguns and 46% percent for self protection.


Thats about what I would have guessed, but posts here from people in the US who have never met someone who owned a gun for protection made me look for stats.

There was a reporter on ITV news last night that went to a gunshop in Virginia. They sold 200 guns per month ranging from little ones through to AK47 type.

He spoke to a chap who had a big machine gun type and asked why he needed it - the chap just said it was "fun". No-one he spoke to said the daily killings by the gun has any effect on their attitude to guns.

So as I said last week, once the funerals are over it's business as usual and nothing will change. In the meantime, 656 more people have been killed by the gun since yesterday week.

Paul - no US poster has yet clarified if a tourist can buy a gun for protection.

Col

Paul - no US poster has yet clarified if a tourist can buy a gun for protection.Then by all means, allow me:rolleyes:

The main focus of the question is "can" which does not specify legal or illegal purchase, so I'll stick with legal:A buyer who is not a citizen of the United States must have lawful alien status and must establish that he or she is a resident of a state by providing a valid photo identification and documentation such as a utility bill or lease agreement which would establish that he or she has resided in the state for at least 90 days prior to the date of the sale.

Congress has passed prohibitions that apply to "any alien in the United States in a non-immigrant status" with certain exceptions and a waiver process. Contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if you have questions about these regulations.

Thanks - Can I hire one? (for protection - I guess I could go hunting with someone elses/hired gun?)


Could I not buy a collectors piece either - whats the reasoning for that?

Thanks - Can I hire one? (for protection - I guess I could go hunting with someone elses/hired gun?)Sure...gimme a call:cool:

Could I not buy a collectors piece either - whats the reasoning for that?transportation. In your case, you would be transporting the item across state lines and out of the country... that's just as much a no, no as you bringing it back into the UK... but you already knew that...

of course, that may not be an issue if the firearm were rendered "useless". They do take cannons, etc. and pour concrete in the barrel so it can't be fired, perhaps a collector's piece could be rendered equally as ineffective (clogging the barrel, removing firing pins, etc), in which case you'd be trasporting "scrap"

So what you are telling me is I have to go without the protection that the approximate 25 million adults / or 20% of households in the US feel they need?

Thats not very hospitable!;) Its almost guaranteed hospitalised!

I love the way the US uses the word "alien" instead of "foreign nationals" - makes you feel really wanted

:rolleyes:

Col

Its almost guaranteed hospitalised!Technically, without health insurance they'll not let you into the hospital anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it:rolleyes:


I love the way the US uses the word "alien" instead of "foreign nationals" - makes you feel really wantedhint, hint:cool:

hint, hint:cool:

if anyone is daft enough to want to go there anyway:D

Things are a lot quieter on the forums without the full quota of US posters upsetting people;)

Col

Things are a lot quieter on the forums without the full quota of US posters upsetting people;) http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/images/smilies/rimshot.gif
ba-dum-boom. He's here all week, two shows a day...don't forget to try the veal:rolleyes:

Technically, without health insurance they'll not let you into the hospital anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it


hint, hint

Liked both of these. :D

http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/images/smilies/rimshot.gif
ba-dum-boom. He's here all week, two shows a day...don't forget to try the veal:rolleyes:

who's here?:confused: what veal?:confused: you're talking in riddles

Col

Technically, without health insurance they'll not let you into the hospital anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it:rolleyes:



What about his credit card?:confused: :rolleyes:

who's here?:confused: what veal?:confused: you're talking in riddlesI was attempting to liken your sense of humor to that of a Las Vegas lounge comedian... guess you don't get to Vegas enough to understand the inference, huh?

What about his credit card?:confused: :rolleyes:
You have credit cards in the UK? :confused:

You have credit cards in the UK? :confused:

Only for when we visit the US:p

I don't have and never will have a credit card, or a gun - both are dangerous in the wrong hands.

I was attempting to liken your sense of humor to that of a Las Vegas lounge comedian... guess you don't get to Vegas enough to understand the inference, huh?

If thats an example of Vegas humour then its hardly worth the trek across the Arizona desert.

Technically, without health insurance they'll not let you into the hospital anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it

What about his credit card?

That will be surgically removed prior to the commencement of any treatment in a US hospital.

Col

I don't have and never will have a credit card, .

and you are going to the States? How will you cope?

Brian

I don't have and never will have a credit card, or a gun - both are dangerous in the wrong hands.Good thing we'll be there to protect you...;)

I know it's not a new article, but I still found it amusing
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30622

Good thing we'll be there to protect you...;)

How do I know if those with a gun are protecting me - or attackers. Do I just wait and see who goes down, and if everyone appears to go down, do I then check that it wasn't me that got shot.

:)

How do I know if those with a gun are protecting me - or attackers. Do I just wait and see who goes down, and if everyone goes appears to go down, do I then check that it wasn't me that got shot.
Well, you don't have a gun, so you can't protect yourself...

you don't have a credit card, so you can't bribe them...

...perhaps you could employ your razor-sharp wit and biting sarcasm?

:D

"Getting A Gun In The USA, For Alien Dummies" says: Bring your toothbrush and attack someone you know that does not have a gun. (See chapter 2 to learn how to find, in forums, those who don't own guns) After the kill, take his papers and get yourself a really big gun using his identity. (See chapter 3 to learn how buying a small gun will reveal that you are an alien.):D

Well, you don't have a gun, so you can't protect yourself...

you don't have a credit card, so you can't bribe them...

...perhaps you could employ your razor-sharp wit and biting sarcasm?


Well they are dumb enough to have a gun and accept bribes by credit card - so you may be right!

Well they are dumb enough to have a gun and accept bribes by credit card - so you may be right!

Now, by "they" do you mean "all Americans", you'll have to be specific otherwise you'll be branded as "anti-American":rolleyes:

Now, by "they" do you mean "all Americans", you'll have to be specific otherwise you'll be branded as "anti-American":rolleyes:

Anyone who dares question anything about the USA is anti-American.

Did you see on telly, that young US girl soldier who they rescued from Iraq hospital. She's said that the "fighting to the last bullet" story, put out by the US military is complete hogwash and was done to keep moral up at home. She was cowering in the back of the personnel carrier with her gun jammed

Then the USA posters here say their media is not manipulated?

Col

Now, by "they" do you mean "all Americans", you'll have to be specific otherwise you'll be branded as "anti-American"

I'm referring to the they as in the them that Bodi used. Who they are and what irks them I don't know!:)

When I first came to Canada, we flew in via New Jersey Airport and, due to missing a connection, spent a lot of time in front of TV screens showing the US news on CNN.

At that time (July 2003) there was a lot about Iraq on and in the footage I saw - roughly four hours' worth, in all - the only images I saw of the war were tall, handsome, uninjured US soldiers getting off planes and being reunited with their Miss America wives and cute babies. Not one image of body bags, the injured, or anything remotely suggesting that things weren't going swimmingly was shown. They didn't even allow anyone unattractive to get within the camera's line of vision.

I can honestly say that if those had been the images we'd seen back in the UK I would have thought the fight was as good as over at that point.

When I first came to Canada, we flew in via New Jersey Airport and, due to missing a connection, spent a lot of time in front of TV screens showing the US news on CNN.

At that time (July 2003) there was a lot about Iraq on and in the footage I saw - roughly four hours' worth, in all - the only images I saw of the war were tall, handsome, uninjured US soldiers getting off planes and being reunited with their Miss America wives and cute babies. Not one image of body bags, the injured, or anything remotely suggesting that things weren't going swimmingly was shown. They didn't even allow anyone unattractive to get within the camera's line of vision.

I can honestly say that if those had been the images we'd seen back in the UK I would have thought the fight was as good as over at that point.
A friend of mine is working for OXFAM. He's a high up in their organisation and has been based in New York for the last year.
Naturally, he watches the US news on telly - he says that there is very little "overseas" news, and the little their is, is because an American or America is involved.
There is nothing about current affairs of any country (apart from the US), he is so used to the BBC and ITV unbiased coverage that he says that is the reason the Americans are so ignorant of world affairs.

It was on the BBC news a while back that no news agency will show dead soldiers coffins draped in the flag, coming home.
Odd really, because there's been 3,000 of them.

Col

I'm referring to the they as in the them that Bodi used. Who they are and what irks them I don't know!:)...lippy Brits...:p

I am sad to see that the US is not the only country with gun related violence

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=676202007

I am sad to see that the US is not the only country with gun related violence

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=676202007

But it's still a rare event here and not an everyday occurance like the US:rolleyes:

This argument can go on forever, but it is going to boil down to one's view of right and wrong.

This leads to the question, what is right (or wrong)? To which again we have a hard answer that reveals itself to be relative in many cases. For instance, killing is wrong. But killing in a holy war isn't? Mutilating someone is wrong. But in Islamic countries, mutilating a thief by removal of his hand is OK? I am not arguing that Islam is right or wrong. I am arguing that people who think themselves to be moral, upstanding people can have radically different views on right or wrong.

So that gets us to the question of whether the Virginia Tech gunman could have been stopped by someone who was armed. To wich the correct answer is "YES." But then we get to right and wrong again.

If someone saw a gunman performing a mass execution and that someone was carrying a concealed weapon... would that someone be right to kill the perpetrator before another victim dies? After all, the perp is being denied the chance for a fair trial? But on the other hand, stopping that person might be next to impossible without use of deadly force. If someone has a martyr complex, it is pretty much game over. Kill or be killed.

I seem to recall a phrase from a movie or TV show... All that is required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. The tragedy in Virginia occurred because everyone who interacted with the gunman assumed someone else would do something. But nobody assumed it was their responsibility o fix the problem. Everybody said, Let someone else do it. And good people did nothing, ...

Yes but in the civillised world children get to play with toy guns, in America they get to play with real guns. Is there a link here?:confused:

Always amazing that whenever someone offers an insightful and well thought out perspective on a complicated issue some posters would rather spew out some more knee jerk anti-Americanisms than take time to actually think about what the previous poster has said and comment on that...

Always amazing that whenever someone offers an insightful and well thought out perspective on a complicated issue some posters would rather spew out some more knee jerk anti-Americanisms than take time to actually think about what the previous poster has said and comment on that...

Whats even more amazing is that Americans deny the facts, blame everyone else and resort to the usual anti-American garbage.:rolleyes:

"To generalize is to dehumanize."

sigh, more avoiding the issue, to deny and ignore the facts is an American trait

What am I denying/avoiding? The fact that you are unwilling to put any thought or effort into considering The Doc Man's perspective? I thought I confronted that one head on...but hey, if it makes you sleep better at night to bury your own head in the sand, just go on thinking that everyone in the US is exactly alike. I wouldn't want to burden you with the task of actually having to think.

I've answered the suggestion that an armed vigillante with a concealed weapon should have acted as an immediate, judge, jury and executioner here before. Do I need to point out the obvious again?

...Americans deny the facts, blame everyone else and resort to the usual anti-American garbage.:rolleyes:sigh...to deny and ignore the facts is an American trait...Do I need to point out the obvious again?
http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/images/smilies/DeadHorse2.gif


C'mon, Rich, this sh*t is getting old...

C'mon, Rich, this sh*t is getting old...

As is the "it's someone elses" fault diatribe, now if you were to elect someone with the guts to start putting an end to the problem...........'course that is after having accepted that there is a problem:rolleyes:

So that gets us to the question of whether the Virginia Tech gunman could have been stopped by someone who was armed. To wich the correct answer is "YES." But then we get to right and wrong again.

To which the correct answer may be "YES".
Since no-one apart from the killer had a gun, it is only an 'educated' guess to say that having more guns on the scene would have improved things. Yes, the person with the gun may have been well-trained, disciplined, and calm enough under pressure to take out just the gunman, without hitting any bystanders, but he/she might just as easily have been someone who thinks they are an expert, having fired at targets on many occasions, but who went to pieces when faced with a loon who could fire back.

If someone saw a gunman performing a mass execution and that someone was carrying a concealed weapon... would that someone be right to kill the perpetrator before another victim dies? After all, the perp is being denied the chance for a fair trial?
With you here. Completely comes down to how you feel about summary vs legal justice.

I seem to recall a phrase from a movie or TV show... All that is required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing.
I believe it was Edmund Burke who said it?

but he/she might just as easily have been someone who thinks they are an expert, having fired at targets on many occasions,

But that's normal for all these America gun experts, isn't it?:rolleyes:

I think that's the main danger - not just with the US, but with ANY country. Look at how many people think of themselves as good drivers. One only has to look at the causes of many traffic accidents to realise that their 'expertise' is questionable at best.

You often hear of soldiers who go to pieces when the firing starts. These are men and women who have undergone (one imagines) significantly more training than