I agree, I intend to own one firearm for hunting and a pistol for home defense and I think think that that is a totally reasonable position to take. I'd rather have me with the lethal advantage, then them.

Ewm, you are making your opinion into a fact.  You have no data or sources to back up those claims, only bullshit rhetoric.  Be quiet or go home.

Just FYI, while I'm still halfway reading this ongoing farce, I've stopped responding because its become depressingly clear to me that the points in debate are completely irreconcilable. The anti-gun crowd is operating in a fundamentally different world and with a different set of values and are completely incapable of recognizing any validity to the other side's arguments so its really kind of a pointless endeavor to talk with them.

We who value our right to bear arms and their right not to are better off hoping that some event that isn't fatal to too many people changes their minds sooner rather than later.

That's exactly my point. Its like fighting a religious cult. There is no possibility of reasoning because the other side is absolutely sure of the divinity of its own position and will tolerate no ideas to the contrary lest they contaminate their holy thinking.

You (and I use that word in the general sense) cannot ever recognize that a weapon can in any way benefit society, even in one instance, and for damn sure refuse to even entertain the idea that said weapons might have a net positive influence. Not only that, also like a religious crusader, you refuse to recognize that others have a right to live their own way and insist they would be better off living according to your world view.


I'm sorry, but there really is no point to discussing things with you ewm, as you're blinded by faith and any facts, arguments or foul language I may use falls on deaf ears. You're convinced to a feverish degree in your own ideals and I seriously doubt that even having yourself or family members being on the receiving end of a situation in which a fire arm could make the difference between life and death would convince you otherwise.


I recognize the points you make as being worthy of consideration, but I reject them on the grounds that the higher ideal and thus the one we must value is the individual's right to self defense which, in this day and age, must include fire arms. IF we were to be possessed of some means to remove all guns everywhere from existence (and it must be existence as the government should be second to last for organizations we allow to have such power), then you would have a valid case and I would happily concede that the anti-gun people are absolutely right. That is flatly not possible so therefor the anti-gun point of view MUST be considered naive at best, guilty of willful, criminal intent at worst.

?? Have you read any thing I just posted?? I am so tired of talking to toaster like person "What do you think about guns" Toaster "your toast is ready" what?.

As long as your not sending letter bombs out I think I am ok.

our constitution guarantees - for now. Most guns are gotten for peaceful prepossess be for they end up in killers hands.

And where it began how surprising.

What is it that you are calming is my opinion?

You are right they did nothing to me, Landmark Education let me see what I could not to let me be what I was not.

There only one world we live in ether you see it as it id or you make stuff up about it and clam that thats the world you live in.


Its not you I am worried about when it come to guns.

Actually, I think that the pro and anti gun arguments are equally incapable of recognising each others arguments.

Taking the UK for instance.  This picture creates the impression that gun crime is so rampant in the UK that every officer has to walk around prepared to fight a small war.



The authorised number of police in the UK is 140,000.  The number of officers authorised to carry firearms is 6,584.  That's under 5% by my quick back of the envelope calculation, so I think you could say that bobbies seldom carry weapons today.  Especially if you consider that not everybody authorised to carry a weapon does so at every point in time.

Given that only a tiny percentage of officers are actually armed, it makes sense to arm the officers in armed response units and on guard duty with overwhelming firepower rather than sidearms.

If somebody produces a weapon (which is more likely to be a BB gun that something actually able to fire a round) the police turn up with an armed response team with a dozen people armed with assault rifles, SMG's and a sniper.  They can do that, because carrying a firearm has a 5 year sentence attached and anybody carrying a weapon is automatically committing a crime.

However, we then hear from the other side of the pond that gun control dosen't work etc, and the only way to have a safe society is to have it awash in weapons and ammunition.

I am about as pro firearms as anybody in the UK you are likely to meet, with the possible exception of street robbers, who I am sure would love to be able to carry a weapon without either automatically being done for five years, or shot on sight.  However I would respectfully submit that their opinion should be discounted as they want the weapons for committing crimes, not preventing them.

I am a member of the local shooting club, I currently hold two medals for small bore rifle shooting, and two gold medals from Suffolk county for pistol shooting.  You can still do target shooting and hunting.  I do not support firearms being used or carried for "defence", (which personally I think is a completely meritless argument in this country) and given the chance I would not carry one.  I know the majority of people in the Suffolk shooting clubs, and I think I am fairly safe in saying that roughly 100% of them wouldn't carry a weapon either if it were legal.  Nobody wants to carry weapons for "defence" over here.

Gun control does work in the UK, and there is no support for changing the law to allow people to carry pistols or rifles on the streets.  The most radical changes to the law that people would really like are comparatively minor changes, like being allowed to own semi automatic weapons in addition to single action weapons.  Simple facts, however foreign pro gun groups won't ever accept that and will misrepresent the facts for their own purposes.  I don't really care that much, its not going to alter anything here.

However I think the US anti gun groups are wrong to suggest that implementing the same laws in the US as we have in the UK would have the same result.  I wouldn't expect it to work because disarming a country with a huge number of weapons in circulation would be near impossible.

For the mentally astute (read: not stupid), what I said is very clear: IF you don't like guns, don't get one.  However, you have no right to take ours away.