The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,507
Richard G said:
This was in the first paragraph of the article richard.
"says a US academic"
What has it got to do with the BBC besides them reporting someones views...where does it say, as you imply, that this is the BBCs opinion or the BBC has any opinion, has changed an opinion or "wised up" on this issue?
Your constant blatant misrepresentations are boring although I admire your persistance....
Shaun from Scotland
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 864
Well, fresh from having his ass kicked again in another thread, Richard G continues his tactic of "lets pretend I didn't have my ass kicked and start another based on some article I blatantly misrepresent in the hope no-one will notice".
Nice try Richard.
Oh and by the way from the article:
"But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence?"
Complete, total and utter BOLLOX! I have seldom read a more blatant piece of wilful obfuscation. Most gun-proponents in the UK wouldn't argue that is what the Bill of Rghts promises!!!
Malcolm's book is well known to me and has been demolished on so many levels it can hardly be worth taking seriously. Another example of reaching a conclusion first, then squeezing the evidence to suit that conclusion.
Nice try Richard.
Oh and by the way from the article:
"But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence?"
Complete, total and utter BOLLOX! I have seldom read a more blatant piece of wilful obfuscation. Most gun-proponents in the UK wouldn't argue that is what the Bill of Rghts promises!!!
Malcolm's book is well known to me and has been demolished on so many levels it can hardly be worth taking seriously. Another example of reaching a conclusion first, then squeezing the evidence to suit that conclusion.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Re: Re: Why Britain needs more guns (BBC)
I wouldn't dismiss the entire link so fast. I don't know why it's important that it was a US academic that said it, it doesn't change the fact that BBC printed it.
Anyway, that's not the point of my reply, the point is this quote which essentially brings up a great argument -- IMO -- for concealed weapon laws.
The Fool said:
I wouldn't dismiss the entire link so fast. I don't know why it's important that it was a US academic that said it, it doesn't change the fact that BBC printed it.
Anyway, that's not the point of my reply, the point is this quote which essentially brings up a great argument -- IMO -- for concealed weapon laws.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Re: Re: Re: Why Britain needs more guns (BBC)
That's right, it is a news organisation that printed an opinion piece. The BBC does not, strictly speaking, say anything. It reports, hopefully from many points of view.
And I still think it's a short sighted way of seeing things.
She is a general pro gun author. Look her up in Amazon.
Grammatron said:
That's right, it is a news organisation that printed an opinion piece. The BBC does not, strictly speaking, say anything. It reports, hopefully from many points of view.
And I still think it's a short sighted way of seeing things.
She is a general pro gun author. Look her up in Amazon.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Zep said:
And that might work for defending your home. But no one will be expecting you to pull one out of your pocket if they're thinking of mugging you.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
The Fool said:
Carrying a concealed Rottweiler is common in Australia....we are some seriously tough dudes
That's a very unpleasant accident waiting to happen
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
The Fool said:
Carrying a concealed Rottweiler is common in Australia....we are some seriously tough dudes
And I thought you were just pleased to see me!
Reginald said:
Well I'm sorry to say you are going to have to change your mind Lothian has proved, conclusively that we in fact need another 17% increase in guns to reduce crime to zero.
Cain
Straussian
In most of the anecdotal examples of guns preventing a crime it's worth noting that the attacker, the thug, usually has a knife or some weapon other than a gun.
Walk me through a situation where having a firearm on your person will thwart a mugger's attempt to steal your money. Or better yet, someone trying to steal my money.
So I'm walking down a dark street in a bad neighborhood and a mugger pulls a gun out on me. Assuming I'm armed, where do I keep it? I like to wear t-shirts and jeans, so would I have to stick it in the back of my pants like that gaylord Magnum PI? Or, whatever, suppose I have a nifty holster under my jacket. If somebody points a gun at my face... what am I going to do? Cartwheel behind the parked brown sedan to my left while pulling out the weapon? When Bruce Willis messes up the director shouts "cut" and they set up an other take.
Will other citizens bring out their Smith & Wessons to "protect" me. I've met a few Texans. I don't trust the average Texan -- or the average American -- or the average person -- to protect me while I'm only feet from a criminal. Then I go from mugging victim to hostage in under sixty seconds. And who knows whether or not some wingnut will start opening fire.
And what's the deal with this stuff about old ladies needing guns to protect themselves? (one guy mentions his granny in the talk back section after the article). Geez, my grandma, an octogenarian, has difficulty lifting a glass of water. And do criminals really instruct women to go through their purses to hand over the wallet? That could take a half an hour! Wouldn't they be wise just to grab the purse? Anyway, doesn't Mace weigh less and isn't easier to use?
And if citizens were widely armed then couldn't that create a perverse incentive for not only the criminal to lock and load, but his next victim might have a nice piece of hardware (which he can sell to a seedy pawn shop or one of his thug buddies).
Guy from Texas:
Criminals have a question they ask themselves when they think about approaching a house out in the country: Is that family armed or not? More than likely they are.
That's certainly one of the more common arguments. If people really insist on carrying guns, can they load them up with rubber bullets? The criminal will have to ask himself: is that ammunition going to kill me dead or hurt me bad? Besides, I bet killing someone with a rubber bullet would garner far more attention and praise at the next local NRA gathering. "You should've seen the sonofabitch writhing on the pavement, Duke. Bang! right in the back of the head. Heh, you can run, but you'll just die tired. Since he wasn't clearly on my property, I dragged him a few feet before the ambulance arrived. He died on the way to the hospital!"
Walk me through a situation where having a firearm on your person will thwart a mugger's attempt to steal your money. Or better yet, someone trying to steal my money.
So I'm walking down a dark street in a bad neighborhood and a mugger pulls a gun out on me. Assuming I'm armed, where do I keep it? I like to wear t-shirts and jeans, so would I have to stick it in the back of my pants like that gaylord Magnum PI? Or, whatever, suppose I have a nifty holster under my jacket. If somebody points a gun at my face... what am I going to do? Cartwheel behind the parked brown sedan to my left while pulling out the weapon? When Bruce Willis messes up the director shouts "cut" and they set up an other take.
Will other citizens bring out their Smith & Wessons to "protect" me. I've met a few Texans. I don't trust the average Texan -- or the average American -- or the average person -- to protect me while I'm only feet from a criminal. Then I go from mugging victim to hostage in under sixty seconds. And who knows whether or not some wingnut will start opening fire.
And what's the deal with this stuff about old ladies needing guns to protect themselves? (one guy mentions his granny in the talk back section after the article). Geez, my grandma, an octogenarian, has difficulty lifting a glass of water. And do criminals really instruct women to go through their purses to hand over the wallet? That could take a half an hour! Wouldn't they be wise just to grab the purse? Anyway, doesn't Mace weigh less and isn't easier to use?
And if citizens were widely armed then couldn't that create a perverse incentive for not only the criminal to lock and load, but his next victim might have a nice piece of hardware (which he can sell to a seedy pawn shop or one of his thug buddies).
Guy from Texas:
Criminals have a question they ask themselves when they think about approaching a house out in the country: Is that family armed or not? More than likely they are.
That's certainly one of the more common arguments. If people really insist on carrying guns, can they load them up with rubber bullets? The criminal will have to ask himself: is that ammunition going to kill me dead or hurt me bad? Besides, I bet killing someone with a rubber bullet would garner far more attention and praise at the next local NRA gathering. "You should've seen the sonofabitch writhing on the pavement, Duke. Bang! right in the back of the head. Heh, you can run, but you'll just die tired. Since he wasn't clearly on my property, I dragged him a few feet before the ambulance arrived. He died on the way to the hospital!"