We've been hearing about yet more killings in US schools last week and this week.

In this weeks American school killings episode, the killings are in an Amish community.ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5401418.stm) (I'd never heard of it before)

Apparently they don't like modern things and do everything to avoid it, they live this weird 18th century existence. They worship some kind of god, so presumably are some kind of crank religious cult.

No doubt they become very voiciferous about "outside" interference, they preach about "isolation from the modern world" - so how come they use modern hospitals, use modern fire engines, modern police etc? it seems a case of "we don't want anything to do with you, till we need you" type of scenario. I would have thought they can't have it both ways, its either one thing or the other. I'll bet they don't pay taxes or any national contributions.

Col

We've been hearing about yet more killings in US schools last week and this week.

In this weeks American school killings episode, the killings are in an Amish community.ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5401418.stm) (I'd never heard of it before)

Apparently they don't like modern things and do everything to avoid it, they live this weird 18th century existence. They worship some kind of god, so presumably are some kind of crank religious cult.

No doubt they become very voiciferous about "outside" interference, they preach about "isolation from the modern world" - so how come they use modern hospitals, use modern fire engines, modern police etc? it seems a case of "we don't want anything to do with you, till we need you" type of scenario. I would have thought they can't have it both ways, its either one thing or the other. I'll bet they don't pay taxes or any national contributions.

Col

Have you not seen the film "Witness" with Harrison Ford??

I do not see a problem if a group what to live a simple life, they do not force their views on others, they just try and limit the influence of modern life on them.

What do you want to happen force them all to have large SUVs and TVs..

There was something similar in M.Night Shylaman's file 'The Village', although I don't think they were Amish, but the society portraid was based around a similar desire to retain high morality through a basic existence.

No doubt they become very voiciferous about "outside" interference, they preach about "isolation from the modern world" - so how come they use modern hospitals, use modern fire engines, modern police etc? it seems a case of "we don't want anything to do with you, till we need you" type of scenario. I would have thought they can't have it both ways, its either one thing or the other. I'll bet they don't pay taxes or any national contributions.

Just as trends and cultures in this day and age penetrate international borders on the barest of whims, I would imagine it is near impossible to keep the outside world from expressing a presence in their own culture.

Imagine for example they chose to build an Amish hospital..? Chances are the beauracrats and officals would make it their business to invade their privacy and close it down on the grounds of 21st century health and safety regulations.

Still, you can't blame them for trying to maintain a sense of order and belief in a world where public morality changes between each and every advertisement break. Many is the time I've longed just to go live in the woods away from all this bull...

Have you not seen the film "Witness" with Harrison Ford??
no I don't know that one.

I do not see a problem if a group what to live a simple life, they do not force their views on others, they just try and limit the influence of modern life on them.
I agree, people can live how they like - as long as they pay their way and don't expect the rest of us to pick up the bill like our travellers and gypo's do. But it appears that they (Amish) preach about avoiding modern things - except when they need it? - double standards maybe?

Just a discussion point;)

anyway, I see old cross eyes is today having urgent talks to try to stem the flow of dead school pupils. Odd that he cares nothing for the premature dead elsewhere

Col

...Apparently they don't like modern things and do everything to avoid it, they live this weird 18th century existence. They worship some kind of god, so presumably are some kind of crank religious cult.

No doubt they become very voiciferous about "outside" interference, they preach about "isolation from the modern world" - so how come they use modern hospitals, use modern fire engines, modern police etc? it seems a case of "we don't want anything to do with you, till we need you" type of scenario. I would have thought they can't have it both ways, its either one thing or the other. I'll bet they don't pay taxes or any national contributions.

Col

I think you're being a bit over dramatic and judgemental. They seem to be very nice people to me. :)

(And it appears to be yet another of your brain-dead lead-ins to another W bash... ho-hum...time for morning coffee :))

no I don't know that one.


I agree, people can live how they like - as long as they pay their way and don't expect the rest of us to pick up the bill like our travellers and gypo's do. But it appears that they (Amish) preach about avoiding modern things - except when they need it? - double standards maybe?

Just a discussion point;)

anyway, I see old cross eyes is today having urgent talks to try to stem the flow of dead school pupils. Odd that he cares nothing for the premature dead elsewhere

Col

I presume they still have to pay tax. (although I do not imagine they have a massive income), as for hospitals I guess they do not have health insurance so that limits their choice. I understand they are basically self suffecient as a community and help each other. (unlike travellers do not claim off the state and own their own land. They have always struck me as a nice community and have been around for 250 odd years since they where
forced to leave Europe.

The Amish are an offshoot of the Mennonites (you may have heard of them).

They remain apart from mainstream American society. They are still required to pay taxes and as a result they have access to hospitals, police fire etc. (after all, they paid for them right).

I think you're being a bit over dramatic and judgemental. They seem to be very nice people to me. :)
I'm sure they are. Most religious cult people (like christians) are, apart from being hypocritical of "outsiders" that is;)

(And it appears to be yet another of your brain-dead lead-ins to another W bash... ho-hum...time for morning coffee :))
I would have thought that 2 separate schools shootings within a week, with several children dead, may have raised your concern a little.
But to hear on the news today that GWB is "concerned" is quite frankly a joke - if he really was concerned, he would reform your gun laws, but that would lose too many votes and money.

Col

... Most religious cult people (like christians) are, apart from being hypocritical of "outsiders" that is
+
...they live this weird 18th century existence.
= Typical Col

...But to hear on the news today that GWB is "concerned" is quite frankly a joke - if he really was concerned, he would reform your gun laws, but that would lose too many votes and money.

Col

Thanks for proving me right again. ;)

Zzz....

if he really was concerned, he would reform your gun laws, but that would lose too many votes and money.

Col
He's not allowed to reform them, some old scrap of paper say that they have the right to shoot each other

You've lost me there Ken.

You've not been playing golf with Gloria have you?:confused:

Col

You've lost me there Ken.

Col

That doesn't suprise me. :p

Actually, I thought this was an good topic to discuss. Shame your typical blanket hate stuff causes most of us on this side of the pond to not have any interest in chatting about it with you...:(

That doesn't suprise me. :p

Actually, I thought this was an good topic to discuss. Shame your typical blanket hate stuff causes most of us on this side of the pond to not have any interest in chatting about it with you...:(

I've not mentioned the word hate. Yet again its your misinterpretation.

I said that most religious people are ok apart from being hypocritical and I said that GWB saying he was going to "do something" about kids being shot in school was a joke.

Also, I questioned about the Amish preaching about "avoiding modern things" - but it seems they can't really do without them. If they pay their way then they are entitled, but then why bother to live in the 18th century? it all seems a bit weird to me.

Get out of the bed on the wrong side today Kenny babe?;) (again)

Col

Guns and Religion aside (as I have little time for either), what about shifting the emphasis of this thread toward the Amish lifestyle sans all the doctrine and getting some general feelings?

Premise - If you could cross-out the religious bits (for the non-religious... and possibly the beards too..!) would the idea of living an Amish-esque lifestyle appeal to you? Consider - even if it was just for say, a month or two.





My head is ringing with Wierd Al Yankovich's "Amish Paradise", everytime I think about the Amish :D

An Amish lyfestyle with Kelly McGillis would appeal a lot.

Also, I questioned about the Amish preaching about "avoiding modern things" - but it seems they can't really do without them. If they pay their way then they are entitled, but then why bother to live in the 18th century? it all seems a bit weird to me.

Get out of the bed on the wrong side today Kenny babe?;) (again)
Col

I am not really sure the Armish use much modern stuff, as said previously there are some groups who do not have electricity. Yes they do use police resources etc but they are hardly a deain on society. The would cult is a little strong as they do not force their views on others and members are free to leave the group (although I guess there is family pressure).

The debate as to why there has been a recent surge in school shooting is interesting, and remember we in the UK are not immune to these dispite our much stricter gun laws. In the last 20 years I can think of at least two examples...

There's a Your Say (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4075&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20061003223617) section on the BBC site about US (lack of) gun control. You have a lot of frickin' idiots over there who banter on about how owning a gun is a freedom under the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ).

Of course, with a proper crime fighting force, there's little need for Americans to be making a posse, vigilante squad, or "militia" any more and so such actions are surely unlawful. So, given that you no longer need guns, why not just amend the constitution again?

It can't be amended again, because the right to bear arms is considered sacred amongst Americans. Why? You don't need guns. It's a hangover from pioneer days. Your media (at least, what I've seen) raves about terrorism threats as if there is actually much need for concern, when the biggest threat to the safety of American citizens is their antiquated constitution, as cases such as the three this week, Columbine, Washington sniper, etc. are proving.

There are those who say that if the guy had been disallowed guns then he would have still managed to obtain them, whether it be from the black market, family, or theft. But, by having proper controls in place, nutjobs like him are restricted in the avenues they can approach in order to obtain such weapons.

Notions such as borrowing from family are negated by making gun ownership illegal, since the family wouldn't have any guns to lend. Stealing, with no guns around, would have him having to thieve from the police, the military, or gangsters. I doubt many would fancy this proposition.

Regarding the black market, I don't buy that people could easily find themselves guns there. Prices, no doubt, would rise since they wouldn't be so easily available. To get such things on a black market, you would no doubt need connections to find them. Places aren't exactly going to have 'Smith & Son, Black Marketeers' above their shop.

And some of the weapons you guys have on sale too, what purpose do they serve in the public's hands? If you must have some sort of weapons then what's wrong with tranquilisers and stun guns? Do you need automatic machine guns, etc. ?

The guy had a lot of weaponry. Since I'm not au fait with the procedures to procure a gun, can someone give answers to the following questions:


What psychological checks are there in place for one seeking to obtain a gun?
What's the turnaround in application to receipt?
Do you have to give reasons why you need one?
Is there a set period where re-assessment of either the weapon or the person is necessary?
Are gun ownership records federal knowledge, or is governed on a state by state basis?
What's the legal age for gun ownership? Does it differ by state?
Is there a maximum amount of weaponry that one can own?
How much do bullets cost?


While one's psychological problems are an obvious factor in making someone decide to perform such an atrocity, you can't help feel that the constant macho image pushed by American media (Hollywood, magazines, gangster rap, etc.) is certainly something that needs remedied. It's one root that leads to low self-esteem amongst such people.

Nice one Mile-O:)

Col

I thought SJ was going to do pretty good until he lowered the post to Col's level right at the start with the 'frickin' idiots' thing. And that pretty much revealed the hate tone for the remainder of the post and it lost my interest... :rolleyes:

'frickin' - Odd word coming from a guy of SJ's caliber. :confused:

'frickin' - Odd word coming from a guy of SJ's caliber. :confused:
I'm beginning to wonder if they are not jealouse of us having guns, since they can't any more. After all, even if they say, saw those London bombers before they blew up, what would they do? Nothing I guess, where here since "pretty much according to Rich/Col" every man, woman and child is armed, we could blow them away before they had a chance to explode them.
Yep, green with envy I am begining to think.

I'm beginning to wonder if they are not jealouse of us having guns, since they can't any more. After all, even if they say, saw those London bombers before they blew up, what would they do? Nothing I guess, where here since "pretty much according to Rich/Col" every man, woman and child is armed, we could blow them away before they had a chance to explode them.
Yep, green with envy I am begining to think.

I'm actually open to discussing gun's, etc. with someone who isn't rude and haughty… :cool:

Apparently they don't like modern things and do everything to avoid it, they live this weird 18th century existence. They worship some kind of god, so presumably are some kind of crank religious cult.

Why are you using the murder of children to attack a benign culture?

Are you that desperate for attention?

I'm actually open to discussing gun's, etc. with someone who isn't rude and haughty…

I have said on this board before that whilst I believe that “the right to bear arms” causes immense problems in the US, I do not believe the almost paranoid laws in the UK that make it illegal to even look at a gun, and the attitude that if you want to own a gun means that physiologically you should not own a gun are not the way to go.

The problem I see in the US for gun control, is that it as seen as a right and any sensible control on a device that is designed to kill (i.e. stringent checks on individuals wanting to own a gun, limitation of fire power, forcing people to keep guns in a secure environment etc) are seen as an infringement of that right and are fought on principle rather the arguments themselves.

I thought SJ was going to do pretty good until he lowered the post to Col's level right at the start with the 'frickin' idiots' thing. And that pretty much revealed the hate tone for the remainder of the post and it lost my interest... :rolleyes:
Hmmm... well to be fair SJ wasn't explicit as to whether he meant everyone who fervently suports the Second Ammendment is an idiot or rather that there simlpy are a lot of idiots who do. The former is certainly combative, the latter is a simple truth.

Personally, I dislike guns and I think the Second Amendment is a relic. On the other hand, you can't just assume a major political and social policy that works in one country will work in another. I would imagine the logistics alone of keeping guns off an island is much simpler and easier than it is for a country 100 times that island's size that also shares a practically open border with a country that is happy to host just about anything for smuggling. Is there any reason to believe we'd be any more successful in preventing access to guns than we are to drugs?

Furthermore, attempts to control guns within the U.S. have showed no sign of actually doing anything to improve the crime rate. For example, Chicago city ordinances basically bans guns. You cannot legally purchase or register a handgun or assault weapon in Chicago. Period. Yes, that is pretty much a blatant violation of the Second Ammendment. And what is the result? Chicago has the highest homicide rates in the country; gun violence is worse here than any other part of the country.

So, relic or not if we're going to ammend the Constitution and remove civil liberties, I'd say we should be damn sure it's the right thing to do. And we just don't have the evidence to make a convincing argument.

I have said on this board before that whilst I believe that “the right to bear arms” causes immense problems in the US, I do not believe the almost paranoid laws in the UK that make it illegal to even look at a gun, and the attitude that if you want to own a gun means that physiologically you should not own a gun are not the way to go.

The problem I see in the US for gun control, is that it as seen as a right and any sensible control on a device that is designed to kill (i.e. stringent checks on individuals wanting to own a gun, limitation of fire power, forcing people to keep guns in a secure environment etc) are seen as an infringement of that right and are fought on principle rather the arguments themselves.

I would say that I pretty much agree with you both fronts. But I would like to make two other statements. 1. Trying to do a one gun law for a city vs. the western wilderness is hard. 2. Keeping people from harming one another by passing laws is addressing the symptom. It make have a limited or short term impact, but the root causes still exist.

:) :)

We've been hearing about yet more killings in US schools last week and this week.

In this weeks American school killings episode, the killings are in an Amish community.ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5401418.stm) (I'd never heard of it before)

Apparently they don't like modern things and do everything to avoid it, they live this weird 18th century existence. They worship some kind of god, so presumably are some kind of crank religious cult.

No doubt they become very voiciferous about "outside" interference, they preach about "isolation from the modern world" - so how come they use modern hospitals, use modern fire engines, modern police etc? it seems a case of "we don't want anything to do with you, till we need you" type of scenario. I would have thought they can't have it both ways, its either one thing or the other. I'll bet they don't pay taxes or any national contributions.

Col

Oh my gosh Col,

I haven’t read the rest of the post yet, but I just had to respond.

I am glad to see you have proven me wrong at last.

I thought there was nothing you knew less about than main stream America. Well you have certainly outdone yourself this time.

Oh my gosh Col,

I haven’t read the rest of the post yet, but I just had to respond.

I am glad to see you have proven me wrong at last.

I thought there was nothing you knew less about then main stream America. Well you have certainly outdone yourself this time.

How dare you! After all he get's his information from a government owned and operated yet unbiased ppv BBC, supermarket tabloids and Green Acre re-runs. :eek: :p :p

That doesn't suprise me. :p

Actually, I thought this was an good topic to discuss. Shame your typical blanket hate stuff causes most of us on this side of the pond to not have any interest in chatting about it with you...:(

(A+) for effort Ken but as you've said, pointless to pursue because some people (always the same ones) have their own depictions of everything, throw blankets over every subject even though we try to give them credit for being more intelligent, to no avail, and are truly the most intolerant persons I've ever run across...to each his own but, dark, dreary, and hateful nevertheless!

They take plenty of jabs at my golf thread because they would rather do that than simply ignore something that doesn't affect them...it's all fine with me because all of the members I share that info. with and hopefully help others form their own leagues like ours, all these guys are to us, are CARTOONS! - Humorous figures that, in the end, offerings from that don't matter because they don't speak for the greater masses, thankfully!:cool:

Proof: Anyone can identify these guys after reading no more than (5) of their comments! In returning to this forum after a 2-year plus absence, I recognized these guys immediately because they still spew the same crap they did back then!...oh well,...I can be tolerant even if they can't!

I like cartoons...:D ;) :p

I'm beginning to wonder if they are not jealouse of us having guns, since they can't any more. After all, even if they say, saw those London bombers before they blew up, what would they do? Nothing I guess, where here since "pretty much according to Rich/Col" every man, woman and child is armed, we could blow them away before they had a chance to explode them.
Yep, green with envy I am begining to think.

Right on the mark!!!

...like I posted before, these guys should write their own history book, naturally called, "HISTORY FOR DUMMIES!":eek: :p :D

I'm beginning to wonder if they are not jealouse of us having guns, since they can't any more. After all, even if they say, saw those London bombers before they blew up, what would they do? Nothing I guess, where here since "pretty much according to Rich/Col" every man, woman and child is armed, we could blow them away before they had a chance to explode them.
Yep, green with envy I am begining to think.
Oh yeah, here we go armed vigilantes on the streets, no wonder so many get shot to death every day in America :rolleyes:

Right on the mark!!!

...like I posted before, these guys should write their own history book, naturally called, "HISTORY FOR DUMMIES!":eek: :p :D

NO! American history for dummies :rolleyes:

Having worked in the Denver School system for over ten years, I saw a fair share of security issues that the District has done an outstanding job in addressing but in these cases, there is nothing you can do to prevent these terrible things.

PEOPLE, notice to some (not Americans, not French, not English, not white, not green, or whatever...), again, PEOPLE who seek to do these kinds of things are simply going to do whatever they think is necessary to carry them out and we all find out why, later.

So as far as I'm concerned, especially in these kind of places, searches, proper ID and whatever harrassment that may follow as long as it is done with respect for the safety of kids is all permissible because that's one of the only ways we can try to prevent this from happening again.

And these events have little or nothing to do with the particular school's area, religious affiliations, or whatever, it's people, plain and simple. It's an opportunity, for whatever reason, for that person or people to show their aggression, guilt in some other part of their life, criminal nature, etc..

There is the moral majority over here trying to do well, support people, work hard, etc just like there is the moral majority any place else trying to do the same and the struggle is when psycho's like this idiot in PA walk into one of our schools and decide to take lives.

So, we, collectively, are always on the alert to increase the safety of our kids while still trying to balance learning and the kind of atmosphere kids can learn in and not turn their school into some kind of locked down watch tower or a prison.

If this guy hadn't taken his own life, he would naturally have been a candidate, a perfect one, for the Death Penalty and why not? - What the hell good would this guy do or offer, even after being "sorry" for ten years or so while on parole...no point...I'm glad he's already dead!

If I lost my daughter that day, I'd grab this sick bastard and shoot him again myself!!!:mad:

Amish, not the point...everyone has a right to live how they choose. It's the individual psycho's that we all must deal with.

No blanket throwing allowed here!

NO! American history for dummies :rolleyes:

Actually, we do have a version of this text, authored by the U.S. founders, mainly England, Ireland, Italy, France, and Germany,...!#>$>>!$#:D :p

I would imagine the logistics alone of keeping guns off an island is much simpler and easier than it is for a country 100 times that island's size that also shares a practically open border with a country that is happy to host just about anything for smuggling. .

Canada seems to manage quite well


Furthermore, attempts to control guns within the U.S. have showed no sign of actually doing anything to improve the crime rate. For example, Chicago city ordinances basically bans guns. You cannot legally purchase or register a handgun or assault weapon in Chicago. Period. Yes, that is pretty much a blatant violation of the Second Ammendment. And what is the result? Chicago has the highest homicide rates in the country; gun violence is worse here than any other part of the country.


That's because you won't act as a united country on this, New York faces the same problem, despite trying to control gun ownership the are simply brought in from the next state


So, relic or not if we're going to ammend the Constitution and remove civil liberties,

What about the poor kids that have just lost their lives to the gun and all the others over the years, Don't they have any civil liberties or a right to protection in your constitution?

And Americans should be aware by now, we've posted the facts often enough, guns are not banned here per se, just hand guns, we just have strict control over other guns

Actually, we do have a version of this text, authored by the U.S. founders,
You mean Americans:rolleyes:

Canada seems to manage quite well

Hate to break it to ya Rich, but we have guns in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dawson-college/

Hate to break it to ya Rich, but we have guns in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dawson-college/

Trust me Matty when I say, Rich has his own book of historical facts that he references so arguing with him won't do any good...trust me!;)

Hate to break it to ya Rich, but we have guns in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dawson-college/

I'm aware of that incident, however it's a rare event in Canada, not a regular one as in the States and I'm sure it's not written into Canadian law that any idiot can own guns

Trust me, there are plenty of idiot Canadians that own guns.

Trust me, there are plenty of idiot Canadians that own guns.
Maybe but they don't go on a regular killing spree in your schools though, do they?

Maybe not schools, but it's not like Canada is immune to gun crimes.

but it's not like Canada is immune to gun crimes.
Sadly neither is the UK, however we do attempt to control it instead of hiding behind some outdated scrap of nonsense

Hmmm... well to be fair SJ wasn't explicit as to whether he meant everyone who fervently suports the Second Ammendment is an idiot or rather that there simlpy are a lot of idiots who do.

Sorry, I thought by saying 'a lot of' rather than 'all' was explicit enough. So no, I did not mean all Americans who support the Second Amendment were idiots. But there seem to be those who see it as 'i gots me a gun an' i ain't givin' it away, no way, sir'. I thought 'frickin' was a great phrase to use. :p

Matty, the UK isn't exempt from gun crimes either. We have our fair share, although such acts are usually the domain of gang warfare, whether it be small urban gangs or citywide organised crime factions. Loners and violent fantasists don't tend to factor, especially since the case of Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane which caused our gun restrictions (relevent mostly to gun clubs) to come even further under scrutiny and subsequent restriction.

From Wikipedia: Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms compared to two thirds in the States. What's Canada doing differently?

Sadly neither is the UK, however we do attempt to control it instead of hiding behind some outdated scrap of nonsense


A scrap of nonsense; that is arguably the most important and substantial document in the world.

A scrap of nonsense; that is arguably the most important and substantial document in the world.
Well I hate to spoil your day but we have something called the Magna Carta, it's about 500 yrs older than your scrap

Matty, the UK isn't exempt from gun crimes either. We have our fair share, although such acts are usually the domain of gang warfare, whether it be small urban gangs or citywide organised crime factions. Loners and violent fantasists don't tend to factor, especially since the case of Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane which caused our gun restrictions (relevent mostly to gun clubs) to come even further under scrutiny and subsequent restriction.

From Wikipedia: Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms compared to two thirds in the States. What's Canada doing differently?

Yeah, I know the UK has it's own fair share of come crimes as well. I'm just explaining to Rich that Canada's not some magic world of non-violence, where people just spend all their time making snow angels. :D

I'm not sure what Canada's doing differently. The feds are trying to get everyone to register their firearms, but that's a bit of a mess. Many people just refuse to register their firearms because they feel the registry is a waste of money and the feds probably won't come after them anyway to fine/jail them. The registry seems like a good first step, but all they'll know is who has the LEGAL guns -- most gun crimes in Canada are performed with stolen/smuggled firearms.

I don't think there is a definitive answer, but there sure are a heck of a lot of theories...

Well I hate to spoil your day but we have something called the Magna Carta, it's about 500 yrs older than your scrap

Ah, the Magna Carta, isn’t that the Latin document extolling the virtues of the Church and God.

Certainly I see why an atheist would assert that it was of more value then the US Constitution.

If you are trying to make a point, you would be well served to moderate your ravings. As I have told you on many occasions. Your Chicken Little routine makes you look ridicules.

And, if for no other reason, the US Constitution is the more important, simply because the US itself has had more influence in the last 150 years or so.

Not bad, I might add, after all we were formed from the dregs of your society.

We have our fair share, although such acts are usually the domain of gang warfare, whether it be small urban gangs or citywide organised crime factions. Loners and violent fantasists don't tend to factor,
I'd say loners and fanatacists are probably a bigger problem here, but just like in the UK the vast majority of gun crime in the U.S. is between gang members. So perhaps the disparity in gun voilence between our countries has less to do with the access to guns and more to do with how prevalent the gang presence is.

And, if for no other reason, the US Constitution is the more important, simply because the US itself has had more influence in the last 150 years or so.

.
You flatter yourself yet again, you've only had any influence since the end of WW11, and since Bush fu*#ed up, you've none left at all, and nobody including you has answered my question regarding the civil liberties of children, your constitution obviously doesn't protect them.

You flatter yourself yet again, you've only had any influence since the end of WW11, .

Oh?

I think that the handwriting was on the wall, so to speak, when the HMS Java was taken by the USS Constitution.

Paving the way for American, naval, industrial, and economic, superiority.

The youth ascends to dominance over the old.

It’s an ancient story, but one who’s telling is still as poignant as ever, especially to the old.

In this weeks American school killings episode, the killings are in an Amish community.ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5401418.stm) (I'd never heard of it before)

Apparently they don't like modern things and do everything to avoid it, they live this weird 18th century existence. They worship some kind of god, so presumably are some kind of crank religious cult.
"They worship some kind of god" - yes, I believe it's the Christian flavour.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of them before... Weird Al's "Amish Paradise", that movie with Tim Allen, other pop culture references...

I saw (bits of) a fascinating documentary about them a while back - apparently when they are teenagers, they are allowed out "into the world" and basically run amok for a while (months? a year?) before deciding whether they want to become adult members of the Amish community, or want to stay in the modern world.
And when I say run amok, I mean full modern teen binge... sex, drugs, alcohol, you name it.

Personally I find the American right to bear arms business, frankly, scary on a few levels. It is so ingrained into American society that there is no easy resolution to a problem that is as bad as it is; any situation would both be improved and worsened in different aspects by removing such a right.

As a human right, the right to bear arms is probably one of the hardest to justify in modern societies - the right to own a car for example is far, far more justifiable and legitimate to put it in some perspective.

The first major argument is - they have guns, so I need one to defend myself; which in the instance of the US is a fairly difficult one to dispute - guns are everywhere. Despite the gravity of taking another's life if it came down to me or mine versus the other folk, I'd settle up with my consience afterwards...

Secondly, you can always get guns no matter what, even in the UK the blackmarket exists. So if such means exist, why bother at all? A register of legal firearms doesn't stop a bullet from an illegal firearm.

Thirdly, it could be guns or another right - people don't like surrendering them as a matter of principle and in the current global (it's not just the US) climate with civil liberties being eroded wholesale people would rise up against the notion purely to stem the tide.

The list could go on... easily! I'm not even American and even I can see the depth of the issue. It cannot be solved, it's part of the cultural identity and so no one would put their political life on the line by pushing too far to solve it.

Coming from a country where if I walked door-to-door around my entire city (assuming everyone told the truth...) I would probably struggle to find a single firearm above an air-rifle, I do balk a bit when I come across people on the forums boards of online games digressing into what firearms they own, how many clips they have etc like its some big badge of honour or something! Thats pretty unnerving, people just talking about it like it was a car they owned or summat - mines got this and that and goes so fast! So even as a foreigner speaking outside of the problem, I would advocate in the face of a virually unsolvable problem that at the very least, a lot needs to be done to change the perception of firearm ownership in the US.

One day, I'm sure, a politician will really stick their neck out and try to fix the unfixable - chances are though, given the irony of life in general, they'll get shot for their trouble!

I do balk a bit when I come across people on the forums boards of online games digressing into what firearms they own, how many clips they have etc like its some big badge of honour or something!

We have them here too, bragging about the size of their equipment and arsenals, I guess they think it makes them tough.:rolleyes:

"They worship some kind of god" - yes, I believe it's the Christian flavour.
Yes, I think that is the cult they belong to

I'm surprised you haven't heard of them before...
there are so many weird and wacko sects and cults in the USA its hard to keep track.

Mile-O, your post was excellent, it doesn't surprise me that the Yanks picked up on the "frickin" bit (which was not misleading at all) and you'll notice totally ignored all your questions. They are expert at avoiding searching questions. I've worked out its paranoia setting in because they think there is an ulterior motive.
They moan about us not knowing stuff about the US but don't answer questions when we try to find out.

Col

Why are you using the murder of children to attack a benign culture?
I raised the murder of children issue, because its happened twice in the USA within a week. (and loads of times previously) plus, I questioned if the benign culture was shunning modern things until they needed them, thus raising the double standard question. In my book, they either shun modern things or they don't, you can't have it both ways when it suits.

Are you that desperate for attention?
so raising a topic about children being killed is attention seeking? how odd

Col

Mile-O, your post was excellent, it doesn't surprise me that the Yanks picked up on the "frickin" bit (which was not misleading at all) and you'll notice totally ignored all your questions.

Thanks, Col.

I asked the same questions on the other forum I moderate: Book & Reader (http://www.bookandreader.com/forum/). Here's the responses I got; and they are quite worrying:

What psychological checks are there in place for one seeking to obtain a gun?
None.

What's the turnaround in application to receipt?
1 hour to 2 to 3 days, depending on where purchased. Also criminal record comes into play here. Certain crimes, i.e. domestic violence = no legal gun ownership rights.

Do you have to give reasons why you need one?
No.

Is there a set period where re-assessment of either the weapon or the person is necessary?
No.

Are gun ownership records federal knowledge, or is governed on a state by state basis?
I believe by the State.

What's the legal age for gun ownership?
Over 18 or parents' consent.

Is there a maximum amount of weaponry that one can own?
No.
How much do bullets cost?
Depends, for example 9mm = $13.00+ for fifty.


Quite why someone would need a gun and have their parents' consent to obtain one, I don't understand. Unless, of course, fashion has truly moved beyond clothes and "bling" and the trendy thing to be seen with is a gun.

The fact that gun ownership would appear to be handled on a state by state basis, rather than a federal one, only makes it more difficult to track gun ownershio. In Virginia, Quantico was set up to track crimes across the states: would it not be more sensible, at least, to track gun ownership at the same level. The lonely psycho could cross state borders...

I realise I do speak as an outsider, as someone with little experience around a society where packing weaponry is as normal as breakfast. But, I don't think you need immersed in such a culture to be allowed to be critical of it.

You're right Mile-O, those answers are disturbing but not unexpected.

Also, the US TV and Hollywood always glamourise the gun, I get the impression it's the "must have" accessory in the US.

Its easier to kill someone with a gun than a Rolex:D

Col

A good post Ksan but if I can mention point 2
Secondly, you can always get guns no matter what, even in the UK the blackmarket exists. So if such means exist, why bother at all? A register of legal firearms doesn't stop a bullet from an illegal firearm.

The idea is to make it difficult, it can never be impossible, sure there are places and people in Liverpool where I can get a gun, but I don't know them and would be afraid of getting more than ripped off if I enquired.

Brian

... I'm not even American and even I can see the depth of the issue. It cannot be solved, it's part of the cultural identity and so no one would put their political life on the line by pushing too far to solve it.

Well put and I think I can see where you are coming from on most of the arguments you've made. May I point out that gun ownership spans numerous groups from hunters and sportsmen to casual gun owners to the other end of the spectrum like the owners of illegal guns like assault guns etc. In order to come up with changes in gun laws I feel like you need to consider them separately. :) :)

What do you think?

And thanks for not felling like you have to use phrases like 'frickin idiots' to make your points. Somehow it makes your comments on the subject sound much more intelligent and well thought out. ;)

May I point out that gun ownership spans numerous groups from hunters and sportsmen to casual gun owners to the other end of the spectrum like the owners of illegal guns like assault guns etc. In order to come up with changes in gun laws I feel like you need to consider them separately. :) :)

What do you think?

Oh, certainly. They do need considered separately.

Police
Military
Sportsmen
Gangs
Farmers
Hunters

Who else really needs guns?

As for hunters, however, I would expect them to hand their rifles into some sort of designated safehouse (forest rangers?) when finished their week away, rather than take them home.

...
I realise I do speak as an outsider, as someone with little experience around a society where packing weaponry is as normal as breakfast. But, I don't think you need immersed in such a culture to be allowed to be critical of it.

Darn, again you were doing well until you did this. Why do you think this how it is in the US?

...As for hunters, however, I would expect them to hand their rifles into some sort of designated safehouse (forest rangers?) when finished their week away, rather than take them home.

That's certainly an option. It would suite me fine. But I think the logistics would be overwheming. Pretty creative... Any other ideas?

That's certainly an option. It would suite me fine. But I think the logistics would be overwheming. Pretty creative... Any other ideas?

How about taking the ownership away from the hunters to avoid any registration of guns and who owns what to having some sort of rifle hire, available only to those holding some sort of hunting license, which is only issued for a set period (like a passport) for those testing for things such as sanity, criminal record since last application, eyesight, physique, etc.

How about taking the ownership away from the hunters to avoid any registration of guns and who owns what to having some sort of rifle hire, available only to those holding some sort of hunting license, which is only issued for a set period (like a passport) for those testing for things such as sanity, criminal record since last application, eyesight, physique, etc.

Again, this would suite me fine. But when you consider the scale of a national solution it becomes undoable. Maybe a pilot system in a smaller, more manageable area would be the place to test it and work out the issues. I would also like to point out that I think a system like this would not eliminate the 'illegal hunting rifles' nor would it prevent an otherwise 'legal' gun from getting into the hands of a criminal. Though it would probably lower the odds...

Lowering the odds is a good start.

Why do you think this how it is in the US?
Your media, should we watch something else?

But I think the logistics would be overwheming.
What are the logistics of enforcing the Patriot act?

Oh, certainly. They do need considered separately.

Police
Military
Sportsmen
Gangs
Farmers
Hunters

Who else really needs guns?
but that covers most of the population in that list

As for hunters, however, I would expect them to hand their rifles into some sort of designated safehouse (forest rangers?) when finished their week away, rather than take them home.
Once hunters have the taste of blood and the enjoyment of killing something. They strap the carcass to their car and proudly parade around with it. I doubt if they are likely to give up their gun - "its their right to have one":rolleyes: they just can't help it. I suppose its marginally better to kill a deer than children - its still murder, but you get away with it.:rolleyes:

Col

Why do you think this how it is in the US?
Your media certainly plays a part. The notion, from the answers I received elsewhere, that turnaround in obtaining a gun can be as little as an hour gives it that feel that you can almost walk in off the street and buy one.

Then kids go to school with them, or the fear is there at least, hence the detectors. And you can carry them in cars, I believe. My friend just came back from seven months driving across the US; I'll ask him for more information.

Lowering the odds is a good start.

I agree. I'm guessing the bean counters would come into play at about this point; ie: How much is this system going to cost and how much effect will it have. If it cost a $100 million and it saved 1 life it's not worth it... Sad but true. Not just in gun control but with most all issues :cool:

Your media, should we watch something else?

May I remind you yet again that it's YOUR media. ;)

Your media certainly plays a part.
Mile-O, I've suggested this many times in the past, and have always been ridiculed for "believing" what the USA pumps out on TV and film.

I even did a thread on "Things we learn about America from TV and film" - again it was poo-poo'd as being not true.:rolleyes:

You're on a loser with this one me old mate - as is Rich, the Yanks won't have it

Your media, should we watch something else?

Col

May I remind you yet again that it's YOUR media. ;)
No it is only shown on our media, your lot made it in the first place;)

What's the turnaround in application to receipt?

1 hour to 2 to 3 days, depending on where purchased. Also criminal record comes into play here. Certain crimes, i.e. domestic violence = no legal gun ownership rights.

Yikes! Is that really still the case? I'm sure I heard somewhere that there was a two week 'cooling down' period or did that not come into law?

I agree. I'm guessing the bean counters would come into play at about this point; ie: How much is this system going to cost and how much effect will it have. If it cost a $100 million and it saved 1 life it's not worth it... Sad but true. Not just in gun control but with most all issues :cool:

I suppose what's really needed is something, as a kickstart, is something that will empower more people with a sense of community, although I couldn't begin to suggest. The media (TV, film, computer games, music) in general are isolatory pastimes which aids the creation of outcasts, and cutting oneself off from communal activities helps to desensitise such things, degrading the understanding of the effect such activities as shooting can have. Not just in the US, but the world over.

I suppose its marginally better to kill a deer than children - its still murder, but you get away with it.:rolleyes:

Col

See what kind of IQ resides around here Ksan... :rolleyes: One has to be able to weed out the chaff around here and have thick skin at the same time. According to COl, If I kill an deer to eat it's murder, the same as murdering children, but if Col pays his butcher to murder a cow to eat, like paying him to murder children, it's ok...:rolleyes:

See what kind of IQ resides around here Ksan..
Pretty low if your logic is any thing to go by Kenny

. According to COl, If I kill an deer to eat it's murder, the same as murdering children, but if Col pays his butcher to murder a cow to eat, like paying him to murder children, it's ok...:rolleyes

The butcher doesn't have to stalk the cow to start with:rolleyes:

but that covers most of the population in that list
Once hunters have the taste of blood and the enjoyment of killing something. They strap the carcass to their car and proudly parade around with it. I doubt if they are likely to give up their gun - "its their right to have one":rolleyes: they just can't help it. I suppose its marginally better to kill a deer than children - its still murder, but you get away with it.:rolleyes:

Col

Whilst I sometimes question the motivation of some individual hunters, If you eat meat you cannot complain about a deer being shot. especially when compared to you roast chicken, and the life it has had...

If I kill an deer to eat it's murder, the same as murdering children, but if Col pays his butcher to murder a cow to eat, like paying him to murder children, it's ok...:rolleyes:
I laid that one out for you Kenneth, and you followed it like a lamb to slaughter:D

Glad I haven't lost the knack - I was beginning to think you had me sussed for a while.:rolleyes: ;) :p

Col

Whilst I sometimes question the motivation of some individual hunters, If you eat meat you cannot complain about a deer being shot. especially when compared to you roast chicken, and the life it has had...
Except that you don't hang the chicken's feathers on the lounge wall as a trophy;)

Your media certainly plays a part. The notion, from the answers I received elsewhere, that turnaround in obtaining a gun can be as little as an hour gives it that feel that you can almost walk in off the street and buy one.

Then kids go to school with them, or the fear is there at least, hence the detectors. And you can carry them in cars, I believe. My friend just came back from seven months driving across the US; I'll ask him for more information.

OK... I'll give you that - Our media stinks, it's not perfect, far from it. But doesn't all of our media leave a lot to be desired? And I applaud you for intending to ask what your friend experiences first hand in the US instead of basing your opinion of us from what you see in the media. But even that shouldn't be taken as a blanket 'Here's how things are in the US'. Heck, I live here and don't feel like I can speak to the attitudes and feelings of people on the west coast, up north, etc. How can someone making a one time trip through here have an accurate pulse on the issues...

(Sorry, I gigged you on the 'frickin' thing... I suppose I was a bit over reactive...:o )

The butcher doesn't have to stalk the cow to start with:rolleyes:

Ask the cow if he feels like he's being stalked :D

. I suppose I was a bit over reactive...:o )
That's to be expected, after all you're American:eek:

I laid that one out for you Kenneth, and you followed it like a lamb to slaughter:D

Glad I haven't lost the knack - I was beginning to think you had me sussed for a while.:rolleyes: ;) :p

Col

Yeah, you are the witty one today aren't you :rolleyes:
(You keep on believing that Col ol' boy, we'll keep humoring you as your dotage sets in...;))

Yeah, you are the witty one today aren't you :rolleyes:
(You keep on believing that Col ol' boy, we'll keep humoring you as your dotage sets in...;))
I think its set in already, it is my birthday week remember:rolleyes: :D

Col

I think its set in already, it is my birthday week remember:rolleyes: :D

Col

Oh yeah sorry to remind you...:o

BTW, How's the garden?

Whilst I sometimes question the motivation of some individual hunters, If you eat meat you cannot complain about a deer being shot. especially when compared to you roast chicken, and the life it has had...
I don't strap a leg of pork to the bonnet of my car and proudly drive round the streets with it, showing it off as a trophy.:rolleyes:

Col

BTW, How's the garden?
A bit untidy I'm afraid. Now that autumn is here there's alot of cutting back and tidying and sweeping to do. Oddly though, as we've had such mild weather, we have some lovely roses just coming out in bud.

I'm leaving shortly (time owed to me) and I'll have a bash at it this afternoon.


Col

I'm leaving shortly (time owed to me) and I'll have a bash at it this afternoon.


Col
Don't bother, it's raining;)

Don't bother, it's raining;)
not here:D

Col

I don't strap a leg of pork to the bonnet of my car and proudly drive round the streets with it, showing it off as a trophy.:rolleyes:

Col

I have a friend who shoots in the UK, he gets the odd deer, (They need to cull a few now and again). He uses the meat, now and again I get a bit. He does not run around with it as a trophy. There is not even a stag head in his house!!!! I see no problem with what he does, although I know people who find it disgusting

not here:D

Col
Trust me, it's on the way:D

I have a friend who shoots in the UK, he gets the odd deer, (They need to cull a few now and again). He uses the meat, now and again I get a bit. He does not run around with it as a trophy. There is not even a stag head in his house!!!! I see no problem with what he does, although I know people who find it disgusting
Its an American thing. Its all to do with the macho Rambo-esque, bullet-belts-over-the-shoulder, sneaking round like they're in the Vietnam jungle, then blasting something image.:rolleyes: As long as they kill or wound something they're happy.

As I said its marginally better than murdering children, and the satisfaction of taking an innocent life is still the same I suppose.:rolleyes:

Col

Trust me, it's on the way:D
just popped out for a fag and its spitting:mad:

Col

just popped out for a fag and its spitting:mad:

Don't say that in Alabama. ;)

Police
Military
Sportsmen
Gangs
Farmers
Hunters

I find it interesting that when asked about potential gun control solutions, the first people addressed on this list are hunters. While hunting accidents do happen, and people who otherwise are not engaged in criminal activity do go on shooting sprees, those events are responsible for a tiny minority of gun violence in this country. Again, the vast majority of gun violence comes from gangs. Hunters and sportsmen aren't the problem - and frankly the NRA wack-o's usually are in this catageory - so why are they the first to come under fire (so to speak ;) )?

As for hunters, however, I would expect them to hand their rifles into some sort of designated safehouse (forest rangers?) when finished their week away, rather than take them home.

Of all of the groups owning guns, hunters are probably the least likely to use them in a committment of a crime.

And that, my friend, is why I included them in my shortlist of people allowed to handle guns. ;)

Don't say that in Alabama. ;)

Or Georgia ;)

... Again, the vast majority of gun violence comes from gangs. Hunters and sportsmen aren't the problem - and frankly the NRA wack-o's usually are in this catageory - so why are they the first to come under fire (so to speak ;) )?

I think there are several misperceptions going on here.

1. A lot of folks assume that if you're a hunter you must be a NRA member. I'm not a lot of my hunting friends are not.

2. If you are a NRA member, you must be a frenzied gun freak. Not so (IMHO). I'm guessing, from the NRA members I know, that most are easy going folks that simply like to hunt and/or shoot guns. It's just that it's the extremist ('frickin idiots' ;) ) that make the headlines, etc...

Hunting has been discussed many times and Col and Rich must know by now that Ken hunts on license and eats what he kills, or so he tells us:) , Hunting to cull is a necessity brought about by man's interference with nature and has no relationship to farming/abatoirs which may follow good or bad practice.

There are "sports" hunters and Ken knows I think they are perverts, but as hunting had its own thread it should not take over this one..

Brian

I think there are several misperceptions going on here.

1. A lot of folks assume that if you're a hunter you must be a NRA member. I'm not a lot of my hunting friends are not.

2. If you are a NRA member, you must be a frenzied gun freak. Not so (IMHO). I'm guessing, from the NRA members I know, that most are easy going folks that simply like to hunt and/or shoot guns. It's just that it's the extremist ('frickin idiots' ;) ) that make the headlines, etc...
Sorry if I fed the fires of stereotyping, Ken. It wasn't my intention to imply either of your points. I was simply trying to say that even the "extremist friggin' idiot" NRAers who make the headlines really aren't the problem and point out that focusing on them isn't really relevant to addressing the problem of gun violence.

Sorry if I fed the fires of stereotyping, Ken. It wasn't my intention to imply either of your points. I was simply trying to say that even the "extremist friggin' idiot" NRAers who make the headlines really aren't the problem and point out that focusing on them isn't really relevant to addressing the problem of gun violence.

Sorry if you felt I was doing a comeback to your point. :o That wasn't my intent :) ... I guess I was making those statements for the benefit of those out side of the US that may get select bit's and pcs of NRA related news.

I agree that hunting in general should be kept to a separate thread but it is kinda / sorta within the context of a gun control discussion... Isn't it?

Its an American thing. Its all to do with the macho Rambo-esque, bullet-belts-over-the-shoulder, sneaking round like they're in the Vietnam jungle, then blasting something image.:rolleyes: As long as they kill or wound something they're happy.

As I said its marginally better than murdering children, and the satisfaction of taking an innocent life is still the same I suppose.:rolleyes:

Col

You're embarrassing yourself Col.

How can you expound, like you’re some kind of expert, when everyone here who actually knows something of the subject, is in total disagreement with your assessments?

Really, don’t you think you would be paid more attention if you at least tried to get the spirit of this conversation partially correct?

Here’s the deal

1. No one I have ever met would consider killing wild life even remotely like murdering children.

2. The Amish chose to remove themselves from modern society to keep to more healthy traditions, like family, love, honor, and equivalent. It is a great tragedy that they were targeted by a defective person from the very society they have chosen to abstain.

It must be some kind of great comfort to you and Rich that you can find so much fault in our lives, You must be able to sleep, oh so much more soundly, knowing you are superior to us in every way.

The American people in general are NOT given over to murdering children in school. This incident was (should be) an isolate case, to be considered only on its merits.

First, late-breaking reports on the killer in the Amish shootings reveals that he admitted to having molested younger female relatives when he was 11 or 12. So there is a history of sickness that went unnoticed. Second, he was apparently pushed towards the edge of insanity a little farther when his own daughter died only 20 minutes after being born. So this guy was a true whacko. When dealing with true whacko types, don't attribute their failings to those around them.

Then, let's be clear on the Amish. They live a simple life because their values are not about ostentatious living. They are not about fast cars and faster women. They are all about family, love, and forgiveness. They believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, and they accept His son as their Savior. But they are so self-effacing that you hardly ever hear of them. Let me tell you, they are excellent farmers, builders, and animal husbandry experts. I have known a few - very few - persons who were Amish. They believe in hard work and a reverential attitude to the planet around them. They are certainly no worse than vegan-type vegetarians or animal-rights activists.

Next, the reason Americans own guns was actually in response to the excesses of the British troops who taught us the unfortunate lesson that only with guns could we repel the oppression of the Redcoat Army. Nothing else got the attention of the British governors - or the King. Then, once we were on our own, you Brits proved again that we really DID need the guns. I believe it was called The War of 1812. (I'm pleased to report that the folks here in south Louisiana gave good account of themselves at the Battle of New Orleans.) The fabric of history shows us time and again that having guns is the way to avoid many bad issues. Look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s after they confiscated privately owned weapons. Look at the invasion of Israel. Then look at the invasion of Kuwait, who didn't have wide ownership of guns.

As to gun ownership laws, it is a patchwork quilt. The U.S. Constitution merely forbids the states from outright prohibiting gun ownership, but it leaves precise interpretation of that situation as a state's right. You guys do NOT understand that the USA is LEGALLY a patchwork country. That is, each state is sovreign unto itself, but voluntarily entered into the agreement to join the USA and bind itself to the principles espoused in the constitution. That didn't mean relinquishing all state-level sovreignty. Which is why we have 50 different sets of laws on things that astound you on the other side of the waters.

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Well, each state of the USA has its own governing bodies as well. What you see as bickering, disagreement, and disunity is actually part of the grand design of the USA. And sometimes it actually works. Because we aren't supposed to do ANYTHING except by consensus. It is truly sad on many levels that the 9/11 tragedy polarized us to the point that GWB could get into office and stay that way. I am hoping that this pendulum will swing back the other way soon. But until the scars of 9/11 heal, I fear that we will have a government that is still reacting to the perceived and actual threats posed by the world around us.

Next, the reason Americans own guns was actually in response to the excesses of the British troops who taught us the unfortunate lesson that only with guns could we repel the oppression of the Redcoat Army. Nothing else got the attention of the British governors - or the King. Then, once we were on our own, you Brits proved again that we really DID need the guns. I believe it was called The War of 1812. (I'm pleased to report that the folks here in south Louisiana gave good account of themselves at the Battle of New Orleans.)

Ah, so it is true that Americans want to remain in the 19th century

The fabric of history shows us time and again that having guns is the way to avoid many bad issues. Look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s after they confiscated privately owned weapons. Look at the invasion of Israel. Then look at the invasion of Kuwait, who didn't have wide ownership of guns.


What invasion of Israel, we all know about the invasion of Iraq, what the hell's that got to do with private gun ownership, are you seriously suggesting that there's a country going to invade and try and take over the Mighty armed forces of United States, absolute nonsence as an argument for retention if ever there was


As to gun ownership laws, it is a patchwork quilt. The U.S. Constitution merely forbids the states from outright prohibiting gun ownership, but it leaves precise interpretation of that situation as a state's right. You guys do NOT understand that the USA is LEGALLY a patchwork country. That is, each state is sovreign unto itself, but voluntarily entered into the agreement to join the USA and bind itself to the principles espoused in the constitution. That didn't mean relinquishing all state-level sovreignty. Which is why we have 50 different sets of laws on things that astound you on the other side of the waters.

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Well, each state of the USA has its own governing bodies as well. What you see as bickering, disagreement, and disunity is actually part of the grand design of the USA.

Their own assemblies have very little power actually, anything significant is decided at national level.
As for your voluntary agreement, I thought you had a bloody civil war to force states to join The Union. Are our history books not telling us the truth?

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Sort of.

Ireland is an independent country, and has little to do with the United Kingdom. Scotland has its own parliament, which has small power to promote its own interests - through this, we banned smoking in all public places in March of this year. The other parliament is not specifically English but governs the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. That's your Tony Bliar seat of power. Wales has even less powers, it just has a national assembly. I'm not too sure what Northern Ireland has.

I'm not too sure what Northern Ireland has.
Nothing much at the minute, the good christian folk won't talk to each other

You're embarrassing yourself Col.

How can you expound, like you’re some kind of expert, when everyone here who actually knows something of the subject, is in total disagreement with your assessments?

Really, don’t you think you would be paid more attention if you at least tried to get the spirit of this conversation partially correct?

Here’s the deal

1. No one I have ever met would consider killing wild life even remotely like murdering children.

2. The Amish chose to remove themselves from modern society to keep to more healthy traditions, like family, love, honor, and equivalent. It is a great tragedy that they were targeted by a defective person from the very society they have chosen to abstain.

It must be some kind of great comfort to you and Rich that you can find so much fault in our lives, You must be able to sleep, oh so much more soundly, knowing you are superior to us in every way.

Pretty darn good J ;)

The American people in general are NOT given over to murdering children in school. This incident was (should be) an isolate case, to be considered only on its merits.

First, late-breaking reports on the killer in the Amish shootings reveals that he admitted to having molested younger female relatives when he was 11 or 12. So there is a history of sickness that went unnoticed. Second, he was apparently pushed towards the edge of insanity a little farther when his own daughter died only 20 minutes after being born. So this guy was a true whacko. When dealing with true whacko types, don't attribute their failings to those around them.

Then, let's be clear on the Amish. They live a simple life because their values are not about ostentatious living. They are not about fast cars and faster women. They are all about family, love, and forgiveness. They believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, and they accept His son as their Savior. But they are so self-effacing that you hardly ever hear of them. Let me tell you, they are excellent farmers, builders, and animal husbandry experts. I have known a few - very few - persons who were Amish. They believe in hard work and a reverential attitude to the planet around them. They are certainly no worse than vegan-type vegetarians or animal-rights activists.

Next, the reason Americans own guns was actually in response to the excesses of the British troops who taught us the unfortunate lesson that only with guns could we repel the oppression of the Redcoat Army. Nothing else got the attention of the British governors - or the King. Then, once we were on our own, you Brits proved again that we really DID need the guns. I believe it was called The War of 1812. (I'm pleased to report that the folks here in south Louisiana gave good account of themselves at the Battle of New Orleans.) The fabric of history shows us time and again that having guns is the way to avoid many bad issues. Look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s after they confiscated privately owned weapons. Look at the invasion of Israel. Then look at the invasion of Kuwait, who didn't have wide ownership of guns.

As to gun ownership laws, it is a patchwork quilt. The U.S. Constitution merely forbids the states from outright prohibiting gun ownership, but it leaves precise interpretation of that situation as a state's right. You guys do NOT understand that the USA is LEGALLY a patchwork country. That is, each state is sovreign unto itself, but voluntarily entered into the agreement to join the USA and bind itself to the principles espoused in the constitution. That didn't mean relinquishing all state-level sovreignty. Which is why we have 50 different sets of laws on things that astound you on the other side of the waters.

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Well, each state of the USA has its own governing bodies as well. What you see as bickering, disagreement, and disunity is actually part of the grand design of the USA. And sometimes it actually works. Because we aren't supposed to do ANYTHING except by consensus. It is truly sad on many levels that the 9/11 tragedy polarized us to the point that GWB could get into office and stay that way. I am hoping that this pendulum will swing back the other way soon. But until the scars of 9/11 heal, I fear that we will have a government that is still reacting to the perceived and actual threats posed by the world around us.

Darn - Another good one - Good go Doc - :)

Here’s the deal

1. No one I have ever met would consider killing wild life even remotely like murdering children.

.

How many million Americans have you met and thus are able to speak for?:confused:


You must be able to sleep, oh so much more soundly, knowing you are superior to us in every way
Not every way Jenny, just most, we aren't better than you at American football or rounders for example:rolleyes:

How many million Americans have you met and thus are able to speak for?:confused:


I'm guessing a few more than you - :p

I'm guessing a few more than you - :p
I see, so just a few are representative of your "diverse" COUNTRY?:confused:

I see, so just a few are representative of your "diverse" COUNTRY?:confused:

That seems to be the notion you imply with W, the NRA, etc...:confused:

Ah, so it is true that Americans want to remain in the 19th century

Naw, we are firmly in the 21st century. This century has better guns. Better scopes, infra-red and laser sighting, better ammo, better coatings on the slug... why should we step back in time? Sheesh, what a STUPID comment.

What invasion of Israel,

OK, perhaps you would prefer "attacks on" Israel. Several since 1968.

what the hell's that got to do with private gun ownership

Just hang on a sec... I'll tie it together for you.

are you seriously suggesting that there's a country going to invade and try and take over the Mighty armed forces of United States

It has everything to do with gun ownership. You not only don't want to attack the USA with its powerful army, but even if you do, you SURELY don't want to try to occupy a country where everyone behind every tree could probably pick off a dozen or so of your soldiers even after the army is no longer around.

The theory is that in the ultimate invasion, even if the army didn't protect us, our own people would form impromptu militia groups that would protect the country. THAT is what gun ownership has to do with protecting the country. (At least in theory.) It is why you don't poke a hornet's nest. You don't just get attacked by a few hornets. Every last one of the hornets has a nasty little stinger and they'll ALL come after your sorry butt.

As to the Civil War - also sometimes called the War of Northern Aggression - yes, sadly it happened. We had reached a point where consensus was nearly impossible on some key economic issues. The history books correctly reported that such a war occurred. They correctly reported that many times we had fighting of brother against brother. They correctly reported that many battles were like slaughters rather than skirmishes.

I don't excuse it. It was not a pretty thing. But then, take a look at other "civil" wars. (Which by the way are rarely civil in any but the most technical interpretations.)

Look at the last 20 years. Hutu-Tutsi conflicts in Africa. Bosnian "ethnic cleansing" in cental Europe. Darfur is another tragedy derived from an ongoing civil war. The fighting still under way in Iraq is a religious-based civil war all its own.

Sometimes countries must go through the forge of civil strife to reach a new balance. As much as I deplore the killing, I understand it. I don't agree with it. I don't believe it is right. But I understand it.

It is the exact same situation that led us to do what we did in 1776. When you reach an intolerable situation because no one will listen, you start doing things that make the other party listen.

Were we wrong to rebel from King? Damfino! (Do at least TRY to hold yourself in check, Rich...) Peaceful attempts to resolve colonial issues failed, leading to the 1776 insurrection.

Were the Bosnians or Hutus or Tutsis right? Damfino! But history is beginning to say "NO." We are still too close to know all the answers, but in general it looks like it was the work of extremists who no longer cared about others.

Are the Shiites and Sunnis of today right? Damfino! Only time will answer that one. It is still too soon.

Naw, we are firmly in the 21st century. This century has better guns. Better scopes, infra-red and laser sighting, better ammo, better coatings on the slug... why should we step back in time? Sheesh, what a STUPID comment.



OK, perhaps you would prefer "attacks on" Israel. Several since 1968.



Just hang on a sec... I'll tie it together for you.



It has everything to do with gun ownership. You not only don't want to attack the USA with its powerful army, but even if you do, you SURELY don't want to try to occupy a country where everyone behind every tree could probably pick off a dozen or so of your soldiers even after the army is no longer around.

The theory is that in the ultimate invasion, even if the army didn't protect us, our own people would form impromptu militia groups that would protect the country. THAT is what gun ownership has to do with protecting the country. (At least in theory.) It is why you don't poke a hornet's nest. You don't just get attacked by a few hornets. Every last one of the hornets has a nasty little stinger and they'll ALL come after your sorry butt.

As to the Civil War - also sometimes called the War of Northern Aggression - yes, sadly it happened. We had reached a point where consensus was nearly impossible on some key economic issues. The history books correctly reported that such a war occurred. They correctly reported that many times we had fighting of brother against brother. They correctly reported that many battles were like slaughters rather than skirmishes.

I don't excuse it. It was not a pretty thing. But then, take a look at other "civil" wars. (Which by the way are rarely civil in any but the most technical interpretations.)

Look at the last 20 years. Hutu-Tutsi conflicts in Africa. Bosnian "ethnic cleansing" in cental Europe. Darfur is another tragedy derived from an ongoing civil war. The fighting still under way in Iraq is a religious-based civil war all its own.

Sometimes countries must go through the forge of civil strife to reach a new balance. As much as I deplore the killing, I understand it. I don't agree with it. I don't believe it is right. But I understand it.

It is the exact same situation that led us to do what we did in 1776. When you reach an intolerable situation because no one will listen, you start doing things that make the other party listen.

Were we wrong to rebel from King? Damfino! (Do at least TRY to hold yourself in check, Rich...) Peaceful attempts to resolve colonial issues failed, leading to the 1776 insurrection.

Were the Bosnians or Hutus or Tutsis right? Damfino! But history is beginning to say "NO." We are still too close to know all the answers, but in general it looks like it was the work of extremists who no longer cared about others.

Are the Shiites and Sunnis of today right? Damfino! Only time will answer that one. It is still too soon.
Christ it's worse than I thought you're living in the 18th century. the United States can blow any friggin country off the face of the planet it likes with it's
arsenal of military weapons, the excuse that civillians need weapons to repell invaders is rather pathetic, to say the least.
You had your civil squabble in the Nineteeth century, what the hell's Bosnia got to do with America's love affair with guns?

...can blow any friggin country off the face of the planet it likes with it's ...

I think SJ has established the correct spelling is with a 'ck' - It's 'frickin'. Please get it correct from now on. :cool:

I think SJ has established the correct spelling is with a 'ck' - It's 'frickin'.
Not in England it's not and although America thinks it owns the free world (in fact it thinks it is the free world) it doesn't (and isn't):rolleyes:

Not in England it's not and although America thinks it owns the free world (in fact it thinks it is the free world) it doesn't (and isn't):rolleyes:


No but they did learn English more or less to accomidate us.

Not in England it's not...

With all due respect Ricky - SJ does seem to have a bit more mastery of all things intellectual, so I think we need to use his spelling as the norm. ;)


and although America thinks it owns the free world (in fact it thinks it is the free world) it doesn't (and isn't):rolleyes:

Where'd that bit of hostility that makes no coherent connection to my light hearted pun on the simple spelling of a slang word come from? You hitting the bottle again?

No but they did learn English more or less to accomidate us.
Well I do so hate to put poo in your apple pie again but it was the British who spread the English language around the world. Are your history books really worse than I thought?:rolleyes:

With all due respect Ricky - SJ does seem to have a bit more mastery of all things intellectual, so I think we need to use his spelling as the norm. ;)



Not in this instance, he's using the CELTIC spelling of the word which is not commonly used in the UK :p

You hitting the bottle again?
Well it beats hitting an American, doesn't it?:confused:

Rich if you are going to argue with The Doc please don't just lash out but read his posts and pick on something substantial such as
It has everything to do with gun ownership. You not only don't want to attack the USA with its powerful army, but even if you do, you SURELY don't want to try to occupy a country where everyone behind every tree could probably pick off a dozen or so of your soldiers even after the army is no longer around.
This scenario didn't stop GWB and Bliar invading Iraq.
Plus I seem to remember the Gestapo tackling this type of problem by killing dozen's of civilians for every German, it kinda slows a man down if he knows his family will be executed. Not everybody fights as gentlemanly as the British.:)

Brian

Not in this instance, he's using the CELTIC spelling of the word which is not commonly used in the UK :p


Well it beats hitting an American, doesn't it?:confused:

Sorry, I stand corrected on both points :o

And with that, the 'cooler is all yours - It's home time as Col would say :D

... Not everybody fights as gentlemanly as the British.:)

Brian

Which is why you have been tricked out of your guns and run out of your commonwealth interests back to the island...

(Sorry, I didn't mean all of that it... But it did feel good for a moment...:) )

And with that, the 'cooler is all yours - It's home time as Col would say :D
Good night and don't you attack any poor defenceless deer with your car on the way home:eek:

Good night and don't you attack any poor defenceless deer with your car on the way home:eek:

That was your 14,000th post

That was your 14,000th post
Actually it's now well over 20,000, but then I stopped counting years ago;)

Rich if you are going to argue with The Doc please don't just lash out but read his posts and pick on something substantial such as

This scenario didn't stop GWB and Bliar invading Iraq.
Plus I seem to remember the Gestapo tackling this type of problem by killing dozen's of civilians for every German, it kinda slows a man down if he knows his family will be executed. Not everybody fights as gentlemanly as the British.:)

Brian

But I don't think they'd understand, I mean how can anyone cite Darfur as an argument for keeping guns, totally oblivious to the fact that it's the plethora of weapons there that are causing the genocide in the first place?;)

Actually it's now well over 20,000, but then I stopped counting years ago;)

Well with the revised system then.

By the way.

Is there one out of the 20,000 that could be remembered for its intuitiveness or even accuracy?

Is there one out of the 20,000 that could be remembered for its intuitiveness or even accuracy?
All of them Jen, but then I'm not one for blowing my own trumpet, unlike the new kid on the block:rolleyes:

... unlike the new kid on the block:rolleyes:

I would think J would be glad to see two picking on someone new for a change - :p

I would think J would be glad to see two picking on someone new for a change - :p


I would much prefer them to pick on me personally than to lump all Americans into some kind of inferior being.

I would much prefer them to pick on me personally than to lump all Americans into some kind of inferior being.
It would be too difficult to separate you

I would think J would be glad to see two picking on someone new for a change - :p
' thought you'd buggered off home yonks ago, you just can't stay away from our pearls of wisdom can you, or are you working overtime?:p

It would be too difficult to separate you

Yes, because it amazing how alike 300,000,000 people can be.

I would much prefer them to pick on me personally than to lump all Americans into some kind of inferior being.

It's just a couple (sometimes 3 ;) ) odd Brits venting... Not much substance really - Write 'em off and move - ;) You must admint the remainder of our peers across the pond are quite pleasant to us inspite of our faults - :o

Yes, because it amazing how alike 300,000,000 people can be.
Or even a billion like China, now, what's your point?

' thought you'd buggered off home yonks ago, you just can't stay away from our pearls of wisdom can you, or are you working overtime?:p

I made it home ;) Just making sure you and the crew were still being somewhat civil... You seem like a pleasant chap when you aren't yanking our chain... What is that sets you off? What can I do to change your opinion of us yanks?

It's just a couple (sometimes 3 ;) ) odd Brits venting...

I see maths isn't one of your strong points either, do they teach anything in American schools other than blind patriotism?:rolleyes: :p

What can I do to change your opinion of us yanks?
Change your ways

Change your ways

Can we start with something a bit less aggresive and more realistic? :D

And don't ask me to sell my guns. :mad:

And don't ask me to sell my guns. :mad:
There see, there's no point and in any case you should destroy your WMD's not sell them:p

There see, there's no point and in any case you should destroy your WMD's not sell them:p

But I've already paid my hunting club dues for the up coming deer season :(

But I've already paid my hunting club dues for the up coming deer season :(
Well you could use a bow and arrow or be a true conservationist and use a paintball gun instead, I mean you'd just not get the thrill of the kill, that's all :eek: :D

Well you could use a bow and arrow or be a true conservationist and use a paintball gun instead, I mean you'd just not get the thrill of the kill, that's all :eek: :D

Hey that a cool idea - I wonder if a squirrel could survive a paintball :p

Hey that a cool idea - I wonder if a squirrel could survive a paintball :p

Squirrels are vermin anyway, they don't count:p

Only the grey ones. ;)

It's just a couple (sometimes 3 ;) ) odd Brits venting... Not much substance really - Write 'em off and move - ;) You must admint the remainder of our peers across the pond are quite pleasant to us inspite of our faults - :o


Quite honestly I'm embarrassed by Rich and Col's comments and infuriated by JSanders' comments.

Rich and Col are wrong to lump every American together and assume they are all psychotic, gun-toting, every man for himself and screw the world types. Neither is it right to automatically attack the comments of someone just because of their nationality. It is embarrassing to portray every UK citizen as so xenophobic.

JSanders is also wrong in that the world does not revolve around the United States. (Apologies - it's been a long day and I'm summarizing) You are the current world power. However, so was the Roman Empire, so were we at one stage, and China is fast catching up. If history - from whichever source - tells us anything it's that the superpowers never stay that way for long. It is infuriating that the US considers itself so superior and feels the need to attack any and every minute threat - even a lighthearted jab - at their core being.


Neither side of the pond are 100% right about the other and neither are 100% wrong about the other. I'm relatively new here, so I apologise if a trans-Atlantic war of words is a forum staple, but it does distract from some otherwise very fascinating and educational discussion points.

Quite honestly I'm embarrassed by Rich and Col's comments and infuriated by JSanders' comments.

Rich and Col are wrong to lump every American together and assume they are all psychotic, gun-toting, every man for himself and screw the world types. Neither is it right to automatically attack the comments of someone just because of their nationality. It is embarrassing to portray every UK citizen as so xenophobic.

JSanders is also wrong in that the world does not revolve around the United States. (Apologies - it's been a long day and I'm summarizing) You are the current world power. However, so was the Roman Empire, so were we at one stage, and China is fast catching up. If history - from whichever source - tells us anything it's that the superpowers never stay that way for long. It is infuriating that the US considers itself so superior and feels the need to attack any and every minute threat - even a lighthearted jab - at their core being.


Neither side of the pond are 100% right about the other and neither are 100% wrong about the other. I'm relatively new here, so I apologise if a trans-Atlantic war of words is a forum staple, but it does distract from some otherwise very fascinating and educational discussion points.

If you go back read even half of my 1400 post you will find some very pungent criticisms of the US and especially its current policies and leadership.

I often exaggerate America’s importance on this forum to infuriate the obnoxious Brits that post here.

Present company, excepted of course.

I often exaggerate America’s importance
Thats not possible.:rolleyes: its exaggerated to full capacity by your current dictator.

Nikki - You need to chill a bit.
Rich and I do not lump all Americans together. We do however go by what Americans on this forum say and what we see on the TV news etc.

Many Americans here own or carry guns like we may own a mobile. Some have said they would shoot an intruder dead without question. Some kill animals with the gun - although why they can't go to a butcher like normal people is beyond me. Some have even listed many different types of weapons (guns) that they own, as if it was a "mine's bigger than yours" scenario.

So, given that the Americans here are a cross section of normal people, then therefore the majority of the US populace must own or carry a gun. There are some Americans here that abhore the thought of owning a gun.

Rich and I are trying to get to the root of. . . . . why?? - and it seems its written in a scrap of meaningless outdated paper so they have to do it.

Col

Thats not possible.:rolleyes: its exaggerated to full capacity by your current dictator.

Nikki - You need to chill a bit.
Rich and I do not lump all Americans together. We do however go by what Americans on this forum say and what we see on the TV news etc.

Many Americans here own or carry guns like we may own a mobile. Some have said they would shoot an intruder dead without question. Some kill animals with the gun - although why they can't go to a butcher like normal people is beyond me. Some have even listed many different types of weapons (guns) that they own, as if it was a "mine's bigger than yours" scenario.

So, given that the Americans here are a cross section of normal people, then therefore the majority of the US populace must own or carry a gun. There are some Americans here that abhore the thought of owning a gun.

Rich and I are trying to get to the root of. . . . . why?? - and it seems its written in a scrap of meaningless outdated paper so they have to do it.

Col

I thought Nikki's post was pretty well done. Much better than anything you've ever attempted - What's the problem Col, get up on the wrong side of the bed today? ;)

Thats not possible.:rolleyes: its exaggerated to full capacity by your current dictator.

Nikki - You need to chill a bit.
Rich and I do not lump all Americans together. We do however go by what Americans on this forum say and what we see on the TV news etc.

Many Americans here own or carry guns like we may own a mobile. Some have said they would shoot an intruder dead without question. Some kill animals with the gun - although why they can't go to a butcher like normal people is beyond me. Some have even listed many different types of weapons (guns) that they own, as if it was a "mine's bigger than yours" scenario.

So, given that the Americans here are a cross section of normal people, then therefore the majority of the US populace must own or carry a gun. There are some Americans here that abhore the thought of owning a gun.

Rich and I are trying to get to the root of. . . . . why?? - and it seems its written in a scrap of meaningless outdated paper so they have to do it.

Col

Hey Nikki,

Col just defended any words I might use, much better than I ever could.

Thank you Col.

Well, at least I've managed one thing - agreement from both sides that I'm wrong and need to chill :rolleyes: ;) :D

JSanders - I only dip in and out of these forums and unfortunately it seems that whenever I do dip in you seem to be arguing with Col et al. so I only see the "We're the top of the world" side. I'll do a search later and see your balanced view. I think I was having a bad morning....

Col - I'm from the UK and I see the same news you do. But I also have family from the US, so I automatically discount half of the media that comes my way, since all media is open to interpretation. I wonder what the rest of the world makes of our media. And I guess it baffled me when the emphasis on a "scrap" of paper 200 years old is a bad thing, when our own scrap of 1000 year old paper is a good thing? Granted the contents are different, but still has an impact on our lives.

Don't we have hunting laws in this country? Last news I saw on it, they were worrying shooting (for sport - at least some Americans eat, or say they eat, what they kill) will go the way of fox hunting.
And I'm fairly certain that we've had cases in this country of intruders being shot....

And please don't get the impression that I'm in any way in favour of guns or whatever. I don't even see the point in shoot-em-up video games.

I thought Nikki's post was pretty well done. Much better than anything you've ever attempted - What's the problem Col, get up on the wrong side of the bed today? ;)
Nikki's post was good - I agree.;)

Actually, I overslept this morning:rolleyes:

Col just defended any words I might use, much better than I ever could.

Thank you Col.

you're welcome Jenny:D

Col

Well, at least I've managed one thing - agreement from both sides that I'm wrong and need to chill :rolleyes: ;) :D

JSanders - I only dip in and out of these forums and unfortunately it seems that whenever I do dip in you seem to be arguing with Col et al. so I only see the "We're the top of the world" side. I'll do a search later and see your balanced view. I think I was having a bad morning....

Col - I'm from the UK and I see the same news you do. But I also have family from the US, so I automatically discount half of the media that comes my way, since all media is open to interpretation. I wonder what the rest of the