aren

Yay, einstein with another retarded set of ideas about guncontrol

Not sure where you get those idea's, but were not living in the 50's. Globalisation makes it pretty much impossible to get a civil war

Pretty funny how every few months we get news from the USA where they has some deluded child kill 20 off his fellow scholers. Strange how that never happens here in NL. The worst we got is a child punching a teacher

Also, dont whine about your current adminstration

[ Unnecessary insult ]

When you say when guns were made illegal, gun crimes rose. Was that because owning a gun became illegal? Therefore, everyone who owned a gun and didn't hand it in or make it safe suddenly committed a crime? It doesn't mean that more people got shot

Back to the original thread though. I thought Brown's visit was a little embarassing for the UK. It was reported in the papers here that Obama gave Brown a thirty minute slot for a personal meeting, cut short because Obama had to meet some boy scouts or something. How embarrassing! As far as I have ever seen the "special relationship" is all one way and the British people, media and politicians need to wake up and smell something other than the whiff of delusion that they have been sniffing all this time. Britain is not important on a world scale and is no more important to the USA than any other NATO member. The UK should stop pandering so much to the USA and instead should concentrate on countries which actually want us to be their friends, are geographically (and in most cases politically) closer to us and give us more trade, the EU!

Lengthy off-topic post because I commented on the factual inaccuracy of an ignorant statement (which is followed with brief post on topic I intended to make before ignorance was vomitted all over this forum):
------------------------------------------
I'm going to let the gun control thing go because it's off topic. Anyone who supports gun control is ignorant beyond anyone I want to talk to anyway. If gun control is your solution to school shootings you're ignoring the real problem. If gun control is your answer to crime you're just ignorant and wrong by every measure and advocating something which increases crime EVERYWHERE it is implemented to "reduce" crime. If by "reduce" crime they mean "increase," I guess it makes sense. But meaning that doesn't make sense. Dumbasses.

>>And if I had referred to violent crimes per capita you would have claimed the statistic was too general to say there's a correlation between gun control and the lower deaths.<<

The point is that gun control will obviously have some impact on use of guns in crime. The point is that if the purpose of gun control is to reduce crime, the relevant statistic is that gun control INCREASES crime EVERYWHERE it is tried and that the supposed purpose of gun control is NOT served by gun control. I had constructed a post [but didn't post it, lil off topic here] with about a dozen links including one to a town which requires gun ownership (and encourages carrying) among most of its populace (eligible populace; not children, criminals, etc) where there hasn't been a murder in more than 25 years. There is an abundance of information out there. Educate yourself. It's not debatable.

>>I'm not saying make it impossible for people to own guns and take guns away from people who do own them I'm saying make it harder.  People are lazy and the harder you make something to do the fewer people will do it.<<

There are MANY laws which restrict gun posession now. The problem is they are not enforced. The funny thing is under leadership that supports gun control (look up how many people were prosecuted for offenses that were reported under Clinton... it's like 4? It's retardedly small.), gun laws are not enforced. Talk about corruption. It serves their interests for guns to be available for crimes so they can gather support for their agenda (gun control), so they do not enforce the laws which would meet their supposed end (reasonably restricted gun posession/availability) in order to gain support for their real desire: gun CONTROL. It's not about guns. It's about unarming the populace. This is not an argument anyone with an education has.

>>On the weapons issue, when australia toughened its gun laws deaths by firearms dropped from 600 in 1991 to 300 in 2001. That being said over that entire period 5000 deaths occured, of which 4000 where suicide. With a halving of homicide and accidental gun deaths in the same period of other natures. <<

Why don't you share with us their increase in violent crime over the same period, oh honest seeker of the truth? Oh yeah; because it more than doubled.

>>So America has about 10x more gun murders then austalia per captia and 27 more then the UK. No offense, but that is rather crazy.<<

Pardon my common sense, but I don't think ANYONE who's ever been MURDERED was primarily concerned that they were suffering a "GUN MURDER." We've been over this statistic and why it means NOTHING. Until you address violent crime and murders, you continually avoid the real statistics because they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

>>Just have a gun liscence like a car liscence, and include background checks such that guns arent granted to those who have aggressive or otherwise mentally unstable background.<<

Requiring a license would infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. We have laws restricting ownership now but those who support gun control are notorious for not supporting them. Gun stores report people who try to buy firearms illegally and those who support gun control in power decline to prosecute any of them.

>>Also restrict hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles to only owners of farmland, as well as make it illegal to conceal a handgun without a permit.<<

So only farm owners should be ALLOWED to hunt? That sounds like a good policy for the land of the free.

Many (most? I've only lived in 2 places for long) areas already require concealed carry permits to carry a firearm concealed. I have one for my home city.

>>If it makes them feel safe to have a gun at home, fine. Doesnt mean they should carry it everywhere with them.<<

It DOES make them safer at home. It's a fact that guns OFTEN protect people and their homes. Most often they do not even have to be used; their presence discourages would-be criminals and they favor getting the hell away from the firearm owner rather than make them a firearm user.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I do not like this topic because those who support gun-control wage a war on personal freedom and accountability backed up ONLY by BAD science. Every instance in history and statistics is consistent. The only thing keeping the "other side" alive is their absolute terror at personal freedom and the thought that they might have to be responsible for themself. The police are not required by law to protect you. This has been held up in court. There are areas where police will turn on their sirens and circle the block before coming to a call or reports of gunshots. No one can protect you at all times and most places. No one can protect you at MOST times and MOST places.

I'm a sane man. I don't shoot people or threaten to shoot people or inform anyone that I'm carrying when I am or have a firearm in my car when I do. As much of an asshole as I can be on a politics forum, I don't pick fights (even when drunk, ie most of the time) and avoid idiots who would ask to be hurt as much as possible. I do not have a criminal record (save a disorderly conduct--I was the victim of racism, no lie) and value my right to protect myself and those I am responsible for. The only thing that would make me want to go on a shooting spree would be if I lost a loved one because some incompetent retard, backed up by bad statistics (ie, lies), kept me from protecting their life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think, beyond the disgusting incompetence of Obama's insulting gift, is a sad indication that Obama does not value the Anglo-American alliance that has been so strong and valued by us in the past. We were given valuable and historical gifts and gave junk that could have been purchased by anyone for a few hundred dollars (at most) in return. This from an educated intellectual with an educated staff of advisors of his choice?

It's embarassing in the worst sort of way. It's insulting to Brown and Britain. British newspapers express outrage and they're entirely right to do so. Obama is equipped to engage enemies of our nation in productive talks but he can't even meet with Brown and not insult a nation? If this does not worry you a little, then you [serious insult to you, your intelligence, and your lack of values].

Yeah, but if we can't conceal weapons, everyone with weapons will have to brandish them in public.  Then every robber will be able to point out the idiots who don't have guns.

Think of this situation:

Little old lady with a purse and a 25 year old in a suit and a violin case.  Who should I rob?  Sorry, lady, you're going down.

But oops!  The little old lady had a revolver in the purse!  Bam!

Now, picture a little old lady carrying a gun around and a 25 year old in a suit and a violin case.  Who should I rob?  Well, shit, if the guy pulls out a gun, I can sue him in a tort for the damages caused by him concealing a weapon.  He's going down!

or maybe Obama won't hang with the British until George Galloway sits in the Tower instead of Parliament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j09Fj0yOM-E