Gun Controll question.

[Zeb_Carter]

No matter how the figures are presented, the incidence of gun crime per 100,000 of population, and that includes replica, BB and toy guns used as a threat, is still 40 times less than in the US. If anything, our gun crime is overstated. Attempted theft by someone using a concealed banana is "gun crime".

Every UK shooting that involves death or serious injury is reported nationwide.

Og

But, but, but the US is forty times bigger, at least!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

You people are running around in circles quoting all the saws that have been bantered around for years.

If we had gun control all guns would be "Registered" and there would be background checks before you were allowed buy. So, criminals would have "Unregistered" gun? Of course. Federal law already requires background checks before you can purchase a gun. The only real hole that would be plugged is the purchase of weapons at gun shows (which currently are almost unregulated). So...

The reality of "Gun Control" is another source of income for goverments for registration fees, etc. It really doesn't do anything else.

 

[oggbashan]

But, but, but the US is forty times bigger, at least!

And there are lies, damn lies and statistics...

Og

PS: In answer to Jenny's post above: The UK had registration for owners of guns before the recent draconian legislation. You could have a shotgun licence and/or a firearm licence. Almost anyone could get a shotgun licence. A firearm licence was more difficult and you had to have secure storage for the firearms, each of which had to be listed on the licence. Even high powered air rifles are considered as firearms. The police could inspect your security at any reasonable time. 5am was "reasonable" in their eyes.

Now? Owning a handgun is virtually impossible.

Og

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

You people are running around in circles quoting all the saws that have been bantered around for years.

If we had gun control all guns would be "Registered" and there would be background checks before you were allowed buy. So, criminals would have "Unregistered" gun? Of course. Federal law already requires background checks before you can purchase a gun. The only real hole that would be plugged is the purchase of weapons at gun shows (which currently are almost unregulated). So...

The reality of "Gun Control" is another source of income for goverments for registration fees, etc. It really doesn't do anything else.

Well spoken. It's a revenue thing. The National Firearms Act of 1935 was supposed to cut down on gangster crime by regulating, licencing, and taxing the sale of Tommy guns. Instead, it just made them more expensive for the average bloke. Uncle Sam got his money. The gangsters got their guns. It just became more difficult for blokes who wanted to resist protection rackets and such.

 

[oggbashan]

Well spoken. It's a revenue thing. The National Firearms Act of 1935 was supposed to cut down on gangster crime by regulating, licencing, and taxing the sale of Tommy guns. Instead, it just made them more expensive for the average bloke. Uncle Sam got his money. The gangsters got their guns. It just became more difficult for blokes who wanted to resist protection rackets and such.

In 1919 and later the UK government was selling off surplus hardware from WWI. Anyone could buy a heavy machine gun, a trench mortar, a howitzer, a heavy artillery piece and suitable ammunition.

The terms of sale stated that you had to be "A gentleman of some social standing" to be able to buy...

Og

 

[kendo1]

But, but, but the US is forty times bigger, at least!

There are approx 300 600 000 people in the USA, 59 000 000 in the UK.

That's about five times the population for those that can't work it out.
Gun crime in the UK is roughly 0.5% of all recorded crime. The figure for 2005 ( the latest I could find ) was 50 homicides.

 

[FallingToFly]

People were killing each other long before guns came into being. Rocks, sticks, spears, blades of all types, arrows.

Anything can become a weapon in the hands of someone determined to maim or kill. Give me a horse and I can kill you with it, give me poison and I can do the same, give me a knife.... well, no. No knives unless I want to make someone hurt for a very long time before they die.

On the flip side of the coin- any weapon can become a protection in the right hands as well.

It's been said time and again: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And until Americans as a whole get off their asses and start raising their children right and living by the basic laws of humanity, they will keep killing each other.

 

[elsol]

The American Revolution 2.0 in my lifetime? I bet against it, except for the fringe that's living it already.

But anything is possible.

Padilla was/is a born U.S. citizen stripped of all legal and constitutional rights by the executive branch declaring him 'enemy combatant'.

Every step of the way it was close, 2-1 in appeals, 5-4 in supreme.

I will never forgive the Republican Party for this one... no matter what, the rights for a U.S. Citizen are inalienable and the federal government abiding by that contract is automatic.

I see it as likely.

 

[Skip1934a]

No gun control law will keep criminals from having guns. It might dis-arm the general public in violation of the constitutional right to 'keep and bear' arms, and make it much easier for a criminal to attain his goals. As some have poited out, a gun is a tool. It has no mind of its owswn. It's people who kill, weather with a gun or a baseball bat. What gets banned after guns, baseball?

No-brainer.

 

[yukonnights]

But Why

It seem's that the real question is; Why are people in this society killing each other at such a frantic pace? I'm old enough to remember a time when widespread random killing in this country was not even a thought, much less a reality. What has caused the change? More insane people? More exposure to violent acts on TV/movies? Too many people / not enough resources? Loss of hope? These are the questions we need to answer. Gun control will solve nothing.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, a lot of interesting arguments here. I have learned a bit. Quite a bit as a matter of fact about how people view this.

My view on gun control here in the United States is a mix of several things. The first is education. This is a several fold thing. The first and largest part is to cut down on the violence so commonly seen in movies. (Or at the very least show the end results and not just the death.) The second part is the education of the gun owner him or herself. Education dealing not only with the care and feeding of the firearm, (including forearms safety.) but it's use in self defence scenarios.

The second part is the training and testing in the use of the firearms. This should, in my view, be done on a yearly basis. (This is the same thing the military and Police use, they call it qualification.)

The third and last part is the now common background check as well as a Psych Test. This Psych test should be done on a yearly or bi-yearly basis.

Another point that needs to be brought up is the punishments for criminals who carry firearms. Down here we have a law called 10-20-life. (This translates as ten years for carrying an illegal firearms during the commision of a crime, 20 years for showing the firearm during said crime and life for actually using the firearm during the crime.) Now that sounds like a grand idea but it is rarely enforced and the criminals know it. In six years here in Florida I have only seen this law enforced once. What we need to do is enforce the laws that we do have. (I could start another thread on this subject alone.)

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Take drugs off the illegal list would allow the police to concentrate on the violent criminals as well as reducing the inventive to crime.

 

[R. Richard]

Let's finally address the root question: "Will gun control work?"

The answer is, of course, no, gun control will not work.

Long ago and far away, in a place called China, there were Buddhist monks. The Buddhist monks live by a very strict set of rules. One of the rules was, "No weapons." The no weapons rule was sort of a very early form of 'gun control.' However, the Buddhist monks sometimes had to travel and the travel was often through wild lands with no law and order. The Buddhist monks needed protection. However, they were no allowed to carry weapons. The Buddhist monks devised a solution to the problem. The solution is called kung-fu.

If you take my gun away and threaten me, I will kill you with my hands, my hiking [pilgrim] staff, my cane, the rope that I use to secure my robes, etc.

 

[FatDino]

Let's finally address the root question: "Will gun control work?"

The answer is, of course, no, gun control will not work.

Long ago and far away, in a place called China, there were Buddhist monks. The Buddhist monks live by a very strict set of rules. One of the rules was, "No weapons." The no weapons rule was sort of a very early form of 'gun control.' However, the Buddhist monks sometimes had to travel and the travel was often through wild lands with no law and order. The Buddhist monks needed protection. However, they were no allowed to carry weapons. The Buddhist monks devised a solution to the problem. The solution is called kung-fu.

If you take my gun away and threaten me, I will kill you with my hands, my hiking [pilgrim] staff, my cane, the rope that I use to secure my robes, etc.

Actually, the rule was "no killing." Also, Buddhism didn't start from China, it was East India. Buddhism wasn't introduced to the Chinese until the 7th century AD.

Buddhism honors forgiveness and purity of the soul. Therefore, their monks use no sharp weapons so that they wouldn't draw blood from their opponents.

Not all monks know kung-fu and not all use the so-called kung-fu.

The monks didn't wait until they traveled to "lands with no law and order" to develop their own martial arts. They brought those arts with them to those lands.

There wasn't a clear distinction between "lands with no law and order" and those that did have "law and order". This period witnessed tremendous amount of bloody civil wars all around Asia. I'm pretty sure no lands were as "peaceful" as you mentioned.

If you want to talk about ancient Chinese history, you may need to do more research. No offense. Not many people know anyway.

eta: It doesn't matter what you have in your hands. It matters what your mind is thinking of.

 

[R. Richard]

Actually, the rule was "no killing." Also, Buddhism didn't start from China, it was East India. Buddhism wasn't introduced to the Chinese until the 7th century AD.

In 527 AD, an Indian Buddhist, called Ta Mo in China, traveled east into China, preaching the ways of Buddhism.

Buddhism honors forgiveness and purity of the soul. Therefore, their monks use no sharp weapons so that they wouldn't draw blood from their opponents.

If you don't think kung-su fighters sometimes draw blood, you haven't seen much real kung-fu.

Not all monks know kung-fu and not all use the so-called kung-fu.

During the Tang dynasty [618-906 AD,] civil war broke out in China. The peace and tranquility previously experienced by the Shaolin monks trained by Ta Mo was over. To defend themselves, the Shaolin monks took Ta Mo's exercises and blended them with local self defense techniques, creating what was known as the Lo Han style. The monks at Shaolin then dedicated themselves to their fighting arts. Continuously upgrading and developing their system of self defense, the monks added the techniques of Chin Na [joint locks,] Shuai-Chiao [wrestling/throwing] and Chi Kung [internal energy.]

The Shaolin monks are, of course, the most famous of the 'fighting monks.' However, other monastaries also produced fighters. At least a lot of the monastaries developed their own styles of kung-fu. The various styles differ considerably and are essentually separte fighting arts. Of course, not all monks were trained in kung-fu.

The monks didn't wait until they traveled to "lands with no law and order" to develop their own martial arts. They brought those arts with them to those lands.

There wasn't a clear distinction between "lands with no law and order" and those that did have "law and order". This period witnessed tremendous amount of bloody civil wars all around Asia. I'm pretty sure no lands were as "peaceful" as you mentioned.

China, during the 6th through 10th centuries was an often violent place. Travellers faced bandits, wars and even local warlords. The need to defend oneself was a constant worry. I don't believe that I stated that there were 'peaceful' lands.

If you want to talk about ancient Chinese history, you may need to do more research. No offense. Not many people know anyway.

eta: It doesn't matter what you have in your hands. It matters what your mind is thinking of.

I have a passable knowledge of ancient Chinese history. I also have a fairly detailed knowledge of Chinese kung fu.

One thing I might mention, Ta Mo found that the Shaolin monks were physically very weak, do to their concentration on developing the mind. Ta Mo gave them exercises to develop the body under the control of the mind.

Not all systems of kung fu were developed in monastaries. A man named Yang [called the Invincible] developed his own system from Tai Chi. When he had the system working he marched some 1500 miles thrugh China with a spear for protection against wild animals. From the spear he hung a banner that siad something like, "If you need your ass kicked, step up." Any number of local studs stepped up and Yang laid them down.

A fanily named Jow also developed what was to become the official Chinese military system of kung fu, called Jow Ga. Jow Ga was selected over many other systems, because Jow Lung kicked ass on everybody who tried to defeat him.

 

[FatDino]

In 527 AD, an Indian Buddhist, called Ta Mo in China, traveled east into China, preaching the ways of Buddhism.


If you don't think kung-su fighters sometimes draw blood, you haven't seen much real kung-fu.

I say monks don't use sharp weapons because they don't want to draw blood. Monks are not the only kung-fu fighters and not all monks use kung-fu. I have seen real kung-fu. My ex was a black belt in both Taek won do and Kung-fu. I have seen martial art directors work with their stunt men.

During the Tang dynasty [618-906 AD,] civil war broke out in China. The peace and tranquility previously experienced by the Shaolin monks trained by Ta Mo was over.

Ever since the West Zhou dynasty grew weak in 770BC, China had never known of peace nor tranquility. Maybe you don't know of the Spring and Autumn Period where hundreds of states within China fought for their own lands and power, then came the Warring States Period which was ended by Qin Xuy Huang Di in 221 BC, then Han and Xin, the list goes on and on.

According to you, the first Buddhist who came to China and preached in 527 BC, brought with him peace. Maybe you didn't know this period is named the 16 Barbarian States period. It was anything but peace.

When Buddhism was finally accepted by general Chinese, it was the 7th century. From the year 527 to this time, still there hadn't been a moment of peace in this country.

To defend themselves, the Shaolin monks took Ta Mo's exercises and blended them with local self defense techniques, creating what was known as the Lo Han style. The monks at Shaolin then dedicated themselves to their fighting arts. Continuously upgrading and developing their system of self defense, the monks added the techniques of Chin Na [joint locks,] Shuai-Chiao [wrestling/throwing] and Chi Kung [internal energy.]

The Shaolin temple was built in the late 5th century, nearly 3 decades before Ta Mo came.

Shaolin monks didn't have to defend themselves against any of the civil wars. Their policy was to not interfere with politics. It wasn't until the Mongols attacked China that there were records of Shaolin monks participate in wars. Even then, their weapons of favor were cannes.

China, during the 6th through 10th centuries was an often violent place. Travellers faced bandits, wars and even local warlords. The need to defend oneself was a constant worry. I don't believe that I stated that there were 'peaceful' lands.

You said the monks traveled to "lands with no law and order" and therefore, had to develop kung-fu to defend themselves. Hmm?

eta: BTW, what does ancient Chinese history have to do with gun control?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Take drugs off the illegal list would allow the police to concentrate on the violent criminals as well as reducing the inventive to crime.

Yeah, it's not what's legal that is the problem: it's what is illegal. If you want to look to Europe for reasons for its low crime rate, look no further than its liberal attitude about drugs. They don't have the second Prohibition over there, as they do out here. But expecting the politicians to show sense without pressure from the public is silly. It's the people who must demand a change in policies, by punishing such folks at the polls.

 

[human_male]

All I'll say is it's pretty hard to have a school shooting rampage if you can't get a gun.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

All I'll say is it's pretty hard to have a school shooting rampage if you can't get a gun.

It's easier to get an illegal gun than one thinks.

 

[FatDino]

All I'll say is it's pretty hard to have a school shooting rampage if you can't get a gun.

We can always use kung-fu, eh?

 

[R. Richard]

BTW, what does ancient Chinese history have to do with gun control?

Because they were not to carry or use weapons, the Shaolin monks developed themselves into weapons. If you deprive a man of weapons, he will usually find a way to acquire weapons. The case of the Shaolin monks is merely an example of the lengths to which they will go to overcome the lack of legal weapons.

Ta Mo did not build or populate the Shaolin Temple. He found the monks in the Shaolin Temple in a state that did not enable them to defend themselves. While the world outside the Shaolin Temple was violent, the Shaolin Temple was a place of tranquillity and that of necessity, since the monks could not defend themselves.

 

[FatDino]

Because they were not to carry or use weapons, the Shaolin monks developed themselves into weapons. If you deprive a man of weapons, he will usually find a way to acquire weapons. The case of the Shaolin monks is merely an example of the lengths to which they will go to overcome the lack of legal weapons.

Yea well, how many kung-fu fighters you know who can kill 32 people in one morning, given the chance those people will fight back? It isn't like anyone can become as deadly as the legendary Wong Fei Hung.

I'd at least like to think that killing with knives is far more difficult than guns.

While the world outside the Shaolin Temple was violent, the Shaolin Temple was a place of tranquillity and that of necessity, since the monks could not defend themselves.

As I have said, they didn't need to defend themselves. The monks had to vow not to interfere with politics. Through out fifteen hundred years, the times the temple was attacked can be counted without taking off your socks.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, it's not what's legal that is the problem: it's what is illegal. If you want to look to Europe for reasons for its low crime rate, look no further than its liberal attitude about drugs. They don't have the second Prohibition over there, as they do out here. But expecting the politicians to show sense without pressure from the public is silly. It's the people who must demand a change in policies, by punishing such folks at the polls.

Yep. And they are too complacent.

Politics, people wrinkle their noses at it, y'know? It's necessary. You're a citizen; take an interest! But they duck and cover. And yet I have never met anyone over the age of consent who hasn't at least tried pot. And millions of people are criminals now because of this set of stupid priorities.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's easier to get an illegal gun than one thinks.

In fact, it is almost always easier to get an illegal weapon than it is to get a legal weapon where there is any level of "gun control." The stricter the "gun control" the easier it is to go the illegal route.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

In fact, it is almost always easier to get an illegal weapon than it is to get a legal weapon where there is any level of "gun control." The stricter the "gun control" the easier it is to go the illegal route.

Make one wonder where all the "illegal" weapons come from...