Las Vegas

mamba80

joe2008 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

My sister, who is British, is married to an American, she has lived in the US for 20 years, she refuses to let him have a gun; last time I checked they were both doing well.

i bet he keeps a Glock in the glovebox though

one of the girls in bank city, jo burg, where we worked, shoot several rounds through the car door after a failed night time car jacking, she didnt hit anyone and they legged it, she would have at the very least been gang raped without the gun.

its a shitte society, like america and one reason why i moved back to europe.

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there.

I presume for every person butchered (and who’s to say having a gun would have made a difference) you count the Pistorious type stories too....

shortfall

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

. Yet again up the page Shortfall is agreeing with the pro gun lobby./quote]

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control. Part of that debate in my opinion should include the effects of antidepressant drugs and also illegal recreational drugs and their effects on the minds of some people which may be linked to rampage killings. I have also pointed out the seemingly obvious fact that banning guns wouldn't prevent all rampage killings as it's quite easy to kill scores of people with knives, easily obtainable household chemicals, fire, vehicles - the list is endless. I wouldn't say that put me in the same bracket as the gun lobby.

veronese68

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns. Most of the western world doesn't have a massive crime problem with gun wielding gangs running around terrifying the unarmed innocent populace.
By all means crack on and look into drug problems but it staggers me that you refuse to see that guns are a huge problem. Hopefully this will be my last post on this subject.
To answer Mamba's point. I would have got out of SA too in those circumstances, I wouldn't live anywhere I have to have a gun to feel safe. I have visited the US, I felt safe enough without having a gun. But I don't think I could live there. As to the person that mentioned the woman canoeing the Amazon alone. She was told not to go into that area, she tweeted she thought she might get killed. Perhaps she shouldn't have gone alone into an area she had been told not to becasue it was highly likely that she would be killed.

shortfall

Veronese68 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns.

No it isn't, it's pointing to some of the obvious difficulties facing ordinary Americans when they consider gun control in a country already awash with legal and illegal guns. Removing legally owned weapons by law abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from owning guns and it won't stop the deranged from finding alternative means to commit mass murder. That's a world away from me supporting the status quo. It's about having an informed debate that avoids easy answers that don't solve anything.

surrey_commuter

Shortfall wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns.

No it isn't, it's pointing to some of the obvious difficulties facing ordinary Americans when they consider gun control in a country already awash with legal and illegal guns. Removing legally owned weapons by law abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from owning guns and it won't stop the deranged from finding alternative means to commit mass murder. That's a world away from me supporting the status quo. It's about having an informed debate that avoids easy answers that don't solve anything.

y

Read up on the NRA you are using all of their arguments. The classics being;
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Without guns they would still kill people
If more people had guns they could defend themselves
Blah, blah, blah criminals, blah innocent people.

verylonglegs

mamba80 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

My sister, who is British, is married to an American, she has lived in the US for 20 years, she refuses to let him have a gun; last time I checked they were both doing well.

i bet he keeps a Glock in the glovebox though

one of the girls in bank city, jo burg, where we worked, shoot several rounds through the car door after a failed night time car jacking, she didnt hit anyone and they legged it, she would have at the very least been gang raped without the gun.

its a shitte society, like america and one reason why i moved back to europe.

Rudi Visagie is the flip side to the story of your bank worker though. A tragic case only made possible because of gun ownership.

bendertherobot

Simples, we make all laws as guidance. Good people will still follow, bad people will still kill.

shortfall

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns.

No it isn't, it's pointing to some of the obvious difficulties facing ordinary Americans when they consider gun control in a country already awash with legal and illegal guns. Removing legally owned weapons by law abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from owning guns and it won't stop the deranged from finding alternative means to commit mass murder. That's a world away from me supporting the status quo. It's about having an informed debate that avoids easy answers that don't solve anything.

y

Read up on the NRA you are using all of their arguments. The classics being;
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Without guns they would still kill people
If more people had guns they could defend themselves
Blah, blah, blah criminals, blah innocent people.

I have sympathy with some of their arguments but so what? I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I'm appalled by the actions of Stephen Paddock and I've repeatedly said that America should review it's gun laws and have an informed debate on the issue. If you think that makes me some kind of shill for the NRA then I couldn't care less.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there.

I presume for every person butchered (and who’s to say having a gun would have made a difference) you count the Pistorious type stories too....

well, i would nt fire a gun at a woman in the loo either.

but the criminals have weapons, they use them on unarmed home owners and anyone else who gets in the way.

If i had to live in the US in a large city, i would have a handgun, rather that than beaten up, then watching as your wife/daughter is raped, then they burn the place with us all in it.

Tony Martin, no not that one, shot 2 burglars, went to jail but you know what? he did the right thing, he was robbed numerous times and in the end, snapped and protected what he had honestly acquired, i may support Labour but i m not a pacifist either.

kingstongraham

If you think the only options are owning a gun or having your daughter raped in front of you, what would you guess is the percentage of people in New York that own a gun?

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there.

I presume for every person butchered (and who’s to say having a gun would have made a difference) you count the Pistorious type stories too....

well, i would nt fire a gun at a woman in the loo either.

but the criminals have weapons, they use them on unarmed home owners and anyone else who gets in the way.

If i had to live in the US in a large city, i would have a handgun, rather that than beaten up, then watching as your wife/daughter is raped, then they burn the place with us all in it.

Tony Martin, no not that one, shot 2 burglars, went to jail but you know what? he did the right thing, he was robbed numerous times and in the end, snapped and protected what he had honestly acquired, i may support Labour but i m not a pacifist either.

He was convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility) and illegally owning a firearm (he'd had his license revoked for a previous incident). Under no rational analysis did he "do the right thing".

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there.

I presume for every person butchered (and who’s to say having a gun would have made a difference) you count the Pistorious type stories too....

well, i would nt fire a gun at a woman in the loo either.

but the criminals have weapons, they use them on unarmed home owners and anyone else who gets in the way.

If i had to live in the US in a large city, i would have a handgun, rather that than beaten up, then watching as your wife/daughter is raped, then they burn the place with us all in it.

Tony Martin, no not that one, shot 2 burglars, went to jail but you know what? he did the right thing, he was robbed numerous times and in the end, snapped and protected what he had honestly acquired, i may support Labour but i m not a pacifist either.

He was convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility) and illegally owning a firearm (he'd had his license revoked for a previous incident). Under no rational analysis did he "do the right thing".

In your opinion. He was a vulnerable old bloke. He'd been burgled numerous times and felt failed by the police and the system. Two scumbags broke into his house, one of whom was a career criminal and by any "rational analysis" neither of them had any right to be there. I don't recall a national outpouring of grief for the guy who was killed. On the contrary, I remember a huge tide of public support in favour of Tony Martin.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there.

I presume for every person butchered (and who’s to say having a gun would have made a difference) you count the Pistorious type stories too....

well, i would nt fire a gun at a woman in the loo either.

but the criminals have weapons, they use them on unarmed home owners and anyone else who gets in the way.

If i had to live in the US in a large city, i would have a handgun, rather that than beaten up, then watching as your wife/daughter is raped, then they burn the place with us all in it.

Tony Martin, no not that one, shot 2 burglars, went to jail but you know what? he did the right thing, he was robbed numerous times and in the end, snapped and protected what he had honestly acquired, i may support Labour but i m not a pacifist either.

He was convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility) and illegally owning a firearm (he'd had his license revoked for a previous incident). Under no rational analysis did he "do the right thing".

yes he did, those robbing scum almost destroyed him, the Police did nothing... saw the same thing when my Great Aunt was robbed, it destroyed her and a previously healthy old lady who enjoyed shopping and walks died a few months later, scared to leave her house, when my mum was burgled, the police did SFA.

Rural crime is very much the poor relation when it comes to the Police.

If you dont want to get shot, leave other peoples property alone.

rjsterry

Vigilantism and summary execution. Excellent stuff.

surrey_commuter

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns.

No it isn't, it's pointing to some of the obvious difficulties facing ordinary Americans when they consider gun control in a country already awash with legal and illegal guns. Removing legally owned weapons by law abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from owning guns and it won't stop the deranged from finding alternative means to commit mass murder. That's a world away from me supporting the status quo. It's about having an informed debate that avoids easy answers that don't solve anything.

y

Read up on the NRA you are using all of their arguments. The classics being;
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Without guns they would still kill people
If more people had guns they could defend themselves
Blah, blah, blah criminals, blah innocent people.

I have sympathy with some of their arguments but so what? I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I'm appalled by the actions of Stephen Paddock and I've repeatedly said that America should review it's gun laws and have an informed debate on the issue. If you think that makes me some kind of shill for the NRA then I couldn't care less.

You have repeatedly said you do not agree with the US gun lobby but in the same breath advocated many of their arguments. It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of fact that your views coincide with the US gun lobby.

This does not make you a shill.

I have no idea why you find this offensive?

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

If you think the only options are owning a gun or having your daughter raped in front of you, what would you guess is the percentage of people in New York that own a gun?

The other option would be watching fewer crap movies

shortfall

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns.

No it isn't, it's pointing to some of the obvious difficulties facing ordinary Americans when they consider gun control in a country already awash with legal and illegal guns. Removing legally owned weapons by law abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from owning guns and it won't stop the deranged from finding alternative means to commit mass murder. That's a world away from me supporting the status quo. It's about having an informed debate that avoids easy answers that don't solve anything.

y

Read up on the NRA you are using all of their arguments. The classics being;
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Without guns they would still kill people
If more people had guns they could defend themselves
Blah, blah, blah criminals, blah innocent people.

I have sympathy with some of their arguments but so what? I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I'm appalled by the actions of Stephen Paddock and I've repeatedly said that America should review it's gun laws and have an informed debate on the issue. If you think that makes me some kind of shill for the NRA then I couldn't care less.

You have repeatedly said you do not agree with the US gun lobby but in the same breath advocated many of their arguments. It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of fact that your views coincide with the US gun lobby.

This does not make you a shill.

I have no idea why you find this offensive?

It isn't an either or argument. I agree with some of their points and disagree with others. Just like I don't want a Labour government but I find Corbyn quite persuasive on a number of issues. Do you have difficulty with that?

surrey_commuter

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Really? I have said that there should be a sensible debate about gun control.

Really? Yes:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .

That is agreeing with the gun lobby andjustifying allowing everyone to have guns.

No it isn't, it's pointing to some of the obvious difficulties facing ordinary Americans when they consider gun control in a country already awash with legal and illegal guns. Removing legally owned weapons by law abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from owning guns and it won't stop the deranged from finding alternative means to commit mass murder. That's a world away from me supporting the status quo. It's about having an informed debate that avoids easy answers that don't solve anything.

y

Read up on the NRA you are using all of their arguments. The classics being;
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Without guns they would still kill people
If more people had guns they could defend themselves
Blah, blah, blah criminals, blah innocent people.

I have sympathy with some of their arguments but so what? I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I'm appalled by the actions of Stephen Paddock and I've repeatedly said that America should review it's gun laws and have an informed debate on the issue. If you think that makes me some kind of shill for the NRA then I couldn't care less.

You have repeatedly said you do not agree with the US gun lobby but in the same breath advocated many of their arguments. It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of fact that your views coincide with the US gun lobby.

This does not make you a shill.

I have no idea why you find this offensive?

It isn't an either or argument. I agree with some of their points and disagree with others. Just like I don't want a Labour government but I find Corbyn quite persuasive on a number of issues. Do you have difficulty with that?

Why are you so angry with me? I did not make you have these thoughts. I merely pointed out they were the same as the US gun lobby.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars

Quite.

Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?

when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons

the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason

People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.

if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.

Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there.

I know several people who live in Northern Ireland who, due to their jobs - i.e. serving their country and protecting you guys/girls -have at least one weapon loaded and ready to go in every room of this their house.

Their families are also trained on how to use these and generally they have several weapons in each room - under tables, in alcoves, under beds, sinks, etc.

Those are both past and present serving people.

Sometimes it's a necessary evil.

Unfortunately it's not a nice world out there.

john80

The problem here is one of consequence. If Steven Paddock had been allowed a single pistol and a single shotgun/rifle could he have killed over 50 people and injured hundreds in the manner which he did. The answer is no. He would have had to go down there and do it face to face and guess what a pistol maybe has around 8 bullets and a shotgun has 2 cartridges with a rifle a bit more. Takes a while to do this much damage where weapons are limited and a lot of other people are packing.

Instead he was able to do it at a distance using high powered rifles and bump stops to turn them into automatic weapons.

Any American can protect themselves from the highly unlikely but highly emotive robbery, rape, killing analogy often used with the above two weapons as generally they are not facing a army of well organised criminals. Americas problem is that reducing the quantity and selection of weapons allowed to be legally held is directly against the interest of corporations making money.

I can't think of a single American that would need more than 2 guns to perform all their current sporting and self defence measures. They could also do this with a limited supply of ammunition that was controlled so that huge arsenals could not be stockpiled. I would rather live in a country without a crime problem perceived or real that requires me to need to stockpile weapons. While you are waiting to be robbed, raped and killed there is a higher chance that a family member will have killed you or themselves using your weapons. To be ready for these unlikely and high aggression events would require you to always have a gun at hand and be ready to use it. This seems like a difficult and dangerous mental state to maintain without becoming a nutter yourself or just being very accident prone.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was always told by some people who thought they were hard "never bring a weapon you're not prepared to use" and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's good advice, and it says a lot about the person using one, right?

Probably good advice, like Mamba though I'd have a gun if I lived in a situation where they were legal and I thought there was a realistic possibility of being the victim of violent crime. That said I'm firmly of the opinion that guns should not be available to the general public except in exceptional circumstances such as farmers who need a shotgun etc.

My father in law had to turn in his shotgun, an 18 th birthday present from his late mum, because his eyesight meant he was no longer safe to have a shotgun licence.

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was always told by some people who thought they were hard "never bring a weapon you're not prepared to use" and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's good advice, and it says a lot about the person using one, right?

Rick's never been anywhere that's a little bit cheeky has he?

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was always told by some people who thought they were hard "never bring a weapon you're not prepared to use" and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's good advice, and it says a lot about the person using one, right?

Rick's never been anywhere that's a little bit cheeky has he?

What are ya implying?

I'm too thick to work it out.

Matthewfalle

That you're a tad naive my old China.

In the nicest possible way.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

That you're a tad naive my old China.

In the nicest possible way.

So, to be clear, you don't think you need to be prepared to use a weapon to bring it?

I.e. i ought to carry a knife around to scare people off just in case, even though I have no intention of stabbing anyone?

Matthewfalle

No.

You're just naïve about some people's reasons for gun ownership and the actual state of the world. .

And I quote:

"Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there. "

I'll give you a call next time some addicts from the slums of Soweto break in and threaten to microwave my daughter unless I give them all our money and jewellery - I'm sure you will be able to rationally the failings of the their desires and persuade them to leave peacefully.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

No.

You're just naïve about some people's reasons for gun ownership and the actual state of the world. .

And I quote:

"Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there. "

I'll give you a call next time some addicts from the slums of Soweto break in and threaten to microwave my daughter unless I give them all our money and jewellery - I'm sure you will be able to rationally the failings of the their desires and persuade them to leave peacefully.

No I mean, move.

Go live somewhere else.

Can't see why I'd want to live somewhere where it's likely enough I'll encounter people who make it necessary to carry a gun.

If you have any agency, why would you put your and your family through that kind of risk?

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No.

You're just naïve about some people's reasons for gun ownership and the actual state of the world. .

And I quote:

"Christ.

F’ck owning a gun. Gtf outa there. "

I'll give you a call next time some addicts from the slums of Soweto break in and threaten to microwave my daughter unless I give them all our money and jewellery - I'm sure you will be able to rationally the failings of the their desires and persuade them to leave peacefully.

No I mean, move.

Go live somewhere else.

Can't see why I'd want to live somewhere where it's likely enough I'll encounter people who make it necessary to carry a gun.

If you have any agency, why would you put your and your family through that kind of risk?

Seriously? Bad people have cars and access to the public transport system you know. Sheeesh, some even have bi-cycles. Some may even be on here ................

Because by the time any agency has arrived they have done bad stuff to me and my family.


For example.........

A friend of mine is a respiratory specialist in the US. 5'1 of little blonde loveliness with a smile that lightens up the world. Does house visits all over her city. Carries a 9mm because, in her own words, she doesn't know what she's walking into.

She's also done multiple tours of Iraq and Afghan and spent 10 years in the Army, so bigger cojones than most men on here.

If she's carrying then she might have a rough idea of the threats.


For example ..............

I was embedded with the US Army for a bit, which is how I got to know her. While we were away, her 3 kids were staying with her sister and brother - average suburban area, we're not talking South Central Chicago here.

Little smack head from down the road broke into brother's house, brother came into the front room, waved his gat at the burglar, burglar ran off.

No shots fired, no one hurt.

Don't think that a stern talking to from a South London banker would have done the same job.



Without taking the pissss, I actually really wish I lived in Rick's world - its must be a parallel galaxy to the real world.

rick_chasey

In fairness, if guns were banned, and the ban well enforced she wouldn't need to carry the gun in the first place.

Which is the whole argument, you numpty.

Andy anyway, my argument was, it's all very well waving a gun at someone, but if they pull one out themselves, you better be prepared to shoot them.

Hence, my point about 'if you're gonna be armed, you need to be prepared to use it'.

Otherwise you're better off just letting the guy take your stuff and you not be shot.