Who's for Gun Control?

It's not a belief system. It's a simple observation of reality. The means to self-defense is inherent to freedom.

 

Self defense is Kung Fu.

You gun owners are nothing without your guns.

 

I speculate that over reliance on guns as protection leaves one more vulnerable as they do not think of alternatives easily

 

Yes, what happens when the gun owners lose their guns in a battle. Do they curl up into a ball and cry.

It does seem odd, that so much talk is given to guns but not if they don't have them.

 

Very well then, you think you are nothing if you don't own a gun. LOL

 

I don't have a gun to begin with.

Never needed one for 'protection'

But are you seriously telling me, you need a gun to protect yourself?

 

So you wouldn't have a problem with Martin having a gun (if he was of legal age)?

 

That makes it a belief system.

The belief being that without a gun your neighbour will shoot you.

It's as deeply engrained as the mirage you call democracy.

 

On the other hand, gun owners think more about alternatives than you probably do since every bullet comes with a lawyer but have a force equalizer if those alternatives don't work; whereas, you would just be in deep dodo.

 

Of course I would have a problem with hoodlums like Martin carrying around guns, but since its law according to our 2nd Amendment, I'll just have to hope that more law abiding citizens trump those criminals by carrying around their own six-shooters.

 

If look at this logically. And to ignore the philosophical musings, to which may be charming. But have really runs its course in this debate. The dead end has been reached.

The issue of weapons, is the glaring realisation, that the owner won't have them at all times. So in prudence and most importantly, realism. To have alternatives.

 

How is the crime rate in England? Twice as high as in the US? Three times?
LOL. Fix your back yard before you try to fix ours.

Remember, as long as we are armed we are citizens. Those of you who were disarmed are subjects.

 

We are glad you live THERE too. Go away.

Yo are a subject. You have a royal family. You are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, as a disarmed subject, thaw we are as armed citizens. Nice try though.
You live in a socialist monarchy. How is that for goofy? How are your teeth?

 

You seem quite reasonable.

Do you show up as 'sane and responsible' in the self diagnosis test for gun ownership?

 

I don't know. I volunteered to serve in the Army for twenty years. I carried and fired a large variety of weapons in my younger days. As a company commander I carried a sidearm. Once I reached Major I carried sidearms or had a security detail to provide security to me.

One can never tell about self tests.

What about you?

 

We are a violent society that worships firearms. We WILL pay the price for that (in many deaths and the grief that comes with them). In due time, the society will be changed (because the carnage will be unbearable).

When enough people that someone or many care about die needlessly... the outcry to change things will not be ignored or withstood.

 

LOL! Looks to me like Shatner had gun control down just fine in that scene.... 3 shots, 3 intended targets hit! Woo hoo!

 

The carnage is in a long term downward trend.

http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2010/12/50-year-trends-in-violent-crime-in-us.html

 

Johnny we would be a violent society with or without guns. About the only thing England changed after the gun ban was the method by which it's citizens are more likely to be murdered and the number of violent crimes which increased by forty percent. Australia's Gun ban eliminate the bi decadal event that was a mass shooting and replaced with an p tick in virtually everyother sort of crime incluing what we in the states would call Aggravated assault and rape.

 

It works fine in Switzerland.