Something must be done... this is something...

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Peter Allen, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:14:34 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    Breidbart) wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:20:33 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    >>Breidbart) wrote:
    >>>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>On 23 Sep 2005 14:30:41 -0700, "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539
    >>>>Of course this means all the bad guys get to keep their weapons too
    >>>>remember.
    >>>Not when they get caught doing bad things.

    >>How often does that happen Se th?

    >
    >Sometimes. Not always.


    Not a very good yardstick then Se th.

    >
    >>>And if they don't do bad things, they aren't bad guys.

    >>Then we don't need guns to protect ourselves from them!

    >
    >But we do to protect ourselves from the people who do do bad things.


    But that is what the forces of law and order are for, and if they are
    not doing the job they must be made more accountable.

    >
    >>>(As if the bad guys would turn in guns just because the law said they
    >>>have to, anyway.)

    >>As if!! ;o)

    >
    >If gun control were a magic spell that worked, I'd be a lot more
    >tempted to support it.


    Well despite all the doom-laden and biased nonsense Will Brink likes
    to post about crime in the UK, we are still a haven of peace where gun
    crime is what the vast majority of us only read about, in a media that
    likes to alarm and exaggerate for the purpose of revenue raising.

    None of us carry guns and none of us want to. That doesn't mean that I
    don't have guns in my home, or that if someone uninvited put his leg
    over my window sill and was a threat to my family, that I wouldn't be
    tempted to blow his balls off. The more likely consequence to matey
    would be that he would likely wear my heavy shooting stick around his
    great thick skull.

    Of course I would have to accept the consequences, which would include
    losing my gun license and a likely prison sentence. However, I am 56
    years of age and have never been the victim of a crime, and neither
    has any member of my extended family, or any of a quite wide circle of
    friends.

    The only place I feel in danger at times is when I'm in my car. That
    can however, be more to do with my driving style perhaps ;o), but is
    often the direct consequence of envy due to my choice of vehicle.
     


  2. In article <[email protected]>,
    Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:14:34 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
    >Breidbart) wrote:


    >>But we do to protect ourselves from the people who do do bad things.

    >
    >But that is what the forces of law and order are for, and if they are
    >not doing the job they must be made more accountable.


    In the US, by law, they are not accountable to victims of crimes. Are
    they in the UK? (That is, if you're the victim, can you successfully
    sue the police for not protecting you?)

    >Well despite all the doom-laden and biased nonsense Will Brink likes
    >to post about crime in the UK, we are still a haven of peace where gun
    >crime is what the vast majority of us only read about, in a media that
    >likes to alarm and exaggerate for the purpose of revenue raising.


    Wasn't that equally true prior to the gun ban? If so, then what was
    the benefit of the ban?

    >None of us carry guns and none of us want to.


    If none of you wanted to, then why pass a ban?

    Seth
    --
    There's no amount of rudeness in the world that can not be cured by the
    judicious application of extreme violence. -- Roland Lee
     
Loading...
Loading...