How should I respond to an anti from europe?

[barman]

I can remember my uncle regularly shooting his sub-machine guns. He was an Indochina war veteran. He owned a Mat 49 and an MP-40.


That was all before 1995.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

How should I respond to an anti from europe?

Europeans are irrelevant to the discussion on RKBA here, or anywhere else for that matter. Break wind in his general direction then log off.

 

[barman]

Europeans are irrelevant to the discussion on RKBA here, or anywhere else for that matter

I beg to differ. Sterling180 and I, being both Europeans, have shown that we are pro-guns.

Don't think that Europe is all made-up of clones. I'm sure you can imagine that many of us (while still a minority) are on your side of the matter.

 

[kbarrett]

I just ask them how do they intend to disarm me? It's kinda hard when you have no weapons yourself.

My own government cannot use the army to disarm a bunch of Al Qaiada barbarians in Iraq ... so how can they possibly prevent me from being armed? EU governments cannot prevent criminals from getting firearms ... so don't even consider using your governments methods, as they have proven useless.

Antis can whine until they are blue in the face. I will not be disarmed, regardless. Even a if a total ban happened in the US tomorrow, I would still find a way to stay armed. An outlaw maybe ... but still armed.

So ... I guess these folks will just have to get used to the idea of armed Americans. Too bad for them.

 

[Fosbery]

Europeans are pretty relevent to the RKBA in Europe And also in the USA for that matter. When it comes to that sort of thing, what happens in Europe will happen to America in time.

 

[sterling180]

As far as safety goes, I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America. What kind of Mad Max society have you got going there? The worst 'bad guys' I encounter sometimes are people that openly laugh at me for wearing a cool hat. I've never in my entire life been confronted with a gun in a threatening way (i.e. as something other than a museum piece). Surely this is a much more relaxed organisation of a society than one where everyone has a cocked gun under his shirt, always on the look-out for some madcap aggressor?

Mad Max was a near-future movie set in the 1990s when the world and every countries society on the planet,was gradually collapsing inwards and the movies were set on the eve of and after a nuclear war,that wiped out most of life on the planet and lawlessness was rife because of the social breakdown in society.We live in a stable society and these problems aren't occuring now but maybe in the future when all natural resources are expended.

So theres no comparison between a lawless post-apocalypse Australian society and a North American society,that is thriving still.I don't know where these jokers get their info from,sometimes.

Tom Fury,your previous comments about the brits are true to some degree but not all people are like this.The gun laws were brough in to stop anti-social sociapaths,who were members of the shooting community in the UK,I wasn't brough in to stop violent crime at all.Now every idiot knows that these laws won't work at all and violent crime will continue to rise,especially in the black communities,because they have their feuds with other black people.

People who support anti-groups target everyone,irrespective of anything and these people are ordinary UK citizens too.No one really wants guns here anymore,because they don't want them and there is no plot to disarm us at all,it is that society is more liberal then before.

The Hungerford and Dunblane killers were both morbid and very insane and this prompted the decision to take action,preventing another massacre of innocent people.Most people would,in my country allow ethnics to kill each other,because they aren't worth the time or effort.

My own government cannot use the army to disarm a bunch of Al Qaiada barbarians in Iraq ... so how can they possibly prevent me from being armed? EU governments cannot prevent criminals from getting firearms ... so don't even consider using your governments methods, as they have proven useless.

Think about it very carefully:gun bans were brough in to protect people against psychos in their communities,who were not previously criminals.When they say criminals they mean would-be criminals.Most normal people can't blow away 30 or more people with an AK47,like Rambo Ryan did,now can they?

 

[Tommygunn]

Think about it very carefully:gun bans were brough in to protect people against psychos in their communities,who were not previously criminals.When they say criminals they mean would-be criminals.Most normal people can't blow away 30 or more people with an AK47,like Rambo Ryan did,now can they?

Ahem ... yeah ... it's not like psychos can't use weapons other than firearms to commit atrocities with. I seem to recall an incident when someone ran throush Harrod's in London (a major department store) and attacked @ 18 people with a knife.
But, then, I hear the Brits are getting into knife control now, too.
" ... gun bans were brough in to protect people against psychos in their communities,who were not previously criminals..." So, if I comprehend this correctly (which I suppose could be debated...) there are people who for no apparant reason suddenly go "psycho," and start killing people??? Hmmmm. Maybe verrrrrryyyy rarely. I should think if one were to investigate the background of these people there would have been something there to warn an observant person the guy wasn't well.
A great deal of crime is commited by serious, repeat offenders. Very rarely does an individual, who is truly sane and normal, go ... "psycho."

People who support anti-groups target everyone,irrespective of anything and these people are ordinary UK citizens too.No one really wants guns here anymore,because they don't want them and there is no plot to disarm us at all,it is that society is more liberal then before.

I don't think I would necessarily call it a "plot." It certainly is part of an agenda, and the rest of the quote only confirms that. But I don't necessarily have to ascribe something to a "plot" or a "conspiracy" to decry it, or to regard it as part of some vile ... "agenda," .... "political movement'' or...well, insert your own choice of phrase here... to be oppossed to it philosophically.
"No one really wants guns here anymore, because they don't want them ...." Perhaps the British people are truly of that opinion, as a majority. I suppose I should respect their opinion, but I question it's righteousness. Theoretically, in America, we have the Constitution and the B.O.R.s to protect the minority from the majority's opinion. It has been said that a democracy is "two wolves and one sheep voting on lunch."
Leaving things to a "democratic vote" is how republics devolve into tyrannies.
As James Fenimore Cooper stated; "It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of people exhibit their tyranny."
...And to some it up, there is another quote from the American jurist, Judge Learned Hand; "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." (1944)

 

[wahsben]

This is a comment posted by Asc on KABA I am not sure if they are the original author but they say it very well. It is a comment made pertaining to an article from Canada titled We must stand up for non-violence.
Asc's comment on this was:
"I am standing up for non-violence. That is why I carry.
I behave non-violently to all who do not threaten me,and I expect them to behave non-violently towards me. My gun is there in case one of the people I meet does not return the courtesy of my non-violence; it allows me to not be a victim of their aggression, which means their violence toward me is thwarted.

The essence of nonviolence,right there.Allowing someone to attack me without me mounting a strong defense is not non-violent,for the bad guy is doing great violence toward me,and by not opposing it, I am allowing violence to prevail, and encouraging the assailant to do great violence towards others too.
Not resisting crime does a great violence on all of us.

 

[Fosbery]

I have to agree with Sterling in that I seriously doubt that those British governments who have tightened firearms restrictions were doing so to make a more compliant population - with the exception, and a very significant one, of the original Firearms Act 1920 - which was designed to prevent communist revolutionaries stockpiling weapons without the government knowing so. The rest, I believe, were simple attempts to be seen to be doing something to reduce crime in order to get votes. The handgun ban for instance. They did not believe that by taking handguns away from the few thousand target shooters and collectors in Britain was a cornerstone of their plan to take over the galaxy - it was just politically popular.

 

[sterling180]

Fosbery is spot on about the last gun ban,but It was popular because the GCN used every trick in the book to discredit the shooting community and also polititions felt a tremendous amount of remorse for the dead victims of Dunblane.Labour was a Scottish party and many of it's top-brass people are Scottish or of Scottish origin.

As for the crime part,If you remember Fosbery 5 years ago,during this time,the Sportsmans Association got a response from David Blunkett,when they started the campaign to restore handgun ownership on the mainland.Blunkett said that although the ban had no adverse effect on handgun crime,it was specifically designed to stop sales of handguns legally,to prevent another gun massacre and psychos like handguns,too.

The Home Office concluded,that this ban is the price that you have to pay for a safer society,because they thought after Hamilton-who do you trust?

 

[Fosbery]

The really stupid thing of course is that the fact that Hamilton's guns were less than 60cm in length had nothing at all to do with his ability to kill children. Today he could do exactly the same thing with a Benneli M2 or a Remmy 1100. Hell, he could stick a high-cap magazine on a 10/22 and clean out a shopping center if he liked, or take down a jumbo jet with a Barrett .50 (if we believe the US anti-gun propoganda! ). Or just pick up a cavalry sabre from the local antique shop and go crazy in a church, or make himself a bomb like the 7/7 guys did.

 

[G36-UK]

It was popular because the GCN used every trick in the book to discredit the shooting community

I didn't know about that. I heard about them beating up Mike Yardley, but not about the discrediting. Can you give some examples?

 

[sterling180]

I didn't know about that. I heard about them beating up Mike Yardley, but not about the discrediting. Can you give some examples?

They used to have a strong poster campaign going and still do to some degree.Sean Connery and Helen Mirren were to my knowledge were featured in anti-gun adverts during 1996 onwards.I know that Connery definately participated in the campaign,because he was sickened at the Dunblane massacre and of the suffering of the surviving victims,during the aftermarth.Helen Mirren was used in an advert,back then,but Im not too sure about it-although she did feature in an advert featuring imitation guns and Brocock air-cartridge air-guns in 2004/05.

The way the GCN discredited the shooting community was,that they wrote a load of old tripe about 'practical pistol' shooting and cowboy action shooting,stating that semi-auto pistols and cartridge 1885s,were dangerous weapons,unnessecary,etc,etc and this is how both Hamilton and Ryan,the two madmen,perfected their skills with deadly efficiency.9mms were targeted too,because Hamilton used a HI-Power fitted with a extended 30 rnd mag.They even tried with blackpowder revolvers too,but were stopped.

Im sure G36UK,that some of the stuff that you have probably read on the GCNs website,is recycled old-campaign stuff,from the birth of that annoying organization.That article about practical shooting was an old one from 1997 and another one was from 1999.They used a channel 4 undercover reporter,to infiltrate a Home Office gun club,where members were using lever-actions and blackpowder pistols.One guy joked about cutting-down the 1895,so that he could be Arnie,so that was translated into irresposible nutcases and these weapons use pistol ammo,because the rifles used .357 and 44 magnum ammo.

Finally there was the Edinburgh campaign and marches in 1996,where they encouraged 750,000 to sign up for an anti-handgun petition,to be handed to the then PM John Major,at Downing Street.

 

[G36-UK]

Im sure G36UK,that some of the stuff that you have probably read on the GCNs website,is recycled old-campaign stuff,from the birth of that annoying organization.

Yep. They also had some anti-replica posters, that a few friends had great fun photoshopping.

One guy joked about cutting-down the 1895,so that he could be Arnie,so that was translated into irresposible nutcases and these weapons use pistol ammo,because the rifles used .357 and 44 magnum ammo.

Ah. I can see how they twisted that (although the Arnie comment might have made it a little easier, despite it being a joke).

It's been at least ten years since the ban, so why haven't the UK gun groups tried to get the ban repealed?

I mean, there's the SAGBNI analysis on their forums about how Hamiton got his guns due to police failings. I'm pretty sure they used the Cullen Inquiry as a source, but the Cullen Report that was published comes to a different conclusion, and misses important parts out that SAGBNI have not only mentioned, but also added to their lists.

Given some of the GCN's tactics you've mentioned, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find people who've been slandered by them. Heck, see if Mike Yardley will give his account of what happened when they encountered each other*.

They lied (and worse) to discredit the gun groups, but would it be so bad if you guys did the same thing using the truth? I mean, they're the reason the ban was passed in the first place. Show the people and the Gov what they're really like, and let's see if we can get rid of the ban, for good*.

*(BTW, you wouldn't know if he'd post online about the conference where they "met"? The only references I know of are a site that's passed into history (along with the site I found the link on), and a .pdf file that just has a description written out, which has no mentioned author. I'm not doubting the facts of the matter, I just would like to hear his side of things rather than come to the wrong conclusions.)

**Meant in both the figurative and literal sense.

 

[ctdonath]

<skipping 6 pages...>

What is a fact though is that a gun is a tool for killing.

Yes it is. Some people need killing - particularly when someone is going to die, and the only deciding factor between whether that someone is the good person or the bad person is a good person with a gun.

society hardly needs every person to own weapons.

The interests of the collective and the individual are often starkly at odds.

you make it seem like it is the only thing that keeps a government from becoming a tyranny, but this is hardly what has happened in Europe, where no one carries guns.

<Insert blank "wow, that's a really ignorant comment" look here>

I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America. What kind of Mad Max society have you got going there?

We don't feel insecure.
We have guns.
It's England, France, etc. that have growing violence rates so high that they're not even newsworthy.

gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary.

Yup.
15 years ago the US government tried a couple high-profile high-violence assaults on citizens (aka Waco and Ruby Ridge) for alleged paperwork violations. The citizens fought back. Most of the ones involved died, but in doing so they inflicted so much harm on the government agents that such crap has never been tried again since.

It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years, going from the amount of damage the US has done to international relationships and wars. But where were all the gun-toting citizens?

On the whole, supporting the actions. We understand that sometimes violence is needed to prevent worse violence ... while we watch European countries kowtow to the demands of terrorists and oppressors.

 

[akodo]

one concept that seems to pop up a lot with europeans in anti-gun discussions is basically "so this guy tries to kill you, but you kill him first, homicide is still done, there is still one man dead" as if somehow self defence is a crime. At least american antis try and say something along the lines of "you will shoot yourself/someone else by accident, you will get angry and kill in a moment of rage, or a criminal will get someone's legal gun and use it for murder"

Well, if there is going to be one dead person regardless, I'd much prefer it be him rather than me.

For some reason that still doesn't sink in. I have had limited success with the following scenario.

Look, your daugher has just been grabbed by a rapist, are you saying she should just meekly co-operate, take her pants off and lay down? Or would you suggest she kick and scream and claw and try and get away. Now before you say it, yes, there might be times, like when he threatens with a weapon, were it might be best to co-operate to live...of course you are betting on a criminal keeping his word and letting a witness live. But you admit there might be times where kicking and clawing and fighting might be the right choice, like if there is a serial rapist in the area who has been killing his victims afterward. The only real objection to the victim clawing her rapist's face is that it might cause him to do her more harm. Yet no one is worried that clawing a rapist's face in attempting to escape is the same as if your daughter would walk up to a man on the street and claw his face with no good reason. You still have a man with a clawed face. I don't know if 'he got what is coming to him' is the right term, but it is close. Same way with a defensive shooting.

 

[Fosbery]

G36,

Most of the UK gun lobby groups were so paralyzed with guilt over Dunblane that their efforts at stopping the ban were half-hearted at best. After it went through, they sort of dried up and didn't do much. Groups like the NRA and BASC are only interested in sporting purposes - hunting and target shooting. They don't give the slightest consideration to self-defence. They seem to have been so scarred by the beating they took in '96/97 that they now play along with the government like good little prols - always accepting current government policy as reasonable restrictions but asking politely for no more.

I often say we need a really forthright gun lobby group, like JPFO or the NRA of the USA, but a lot of gun owners here don't like the idea. They prefer to stay quietly out of the way and hope people just forget about them and don't ban anything else. Going on marches with Oleg's pics on placards, they think, will only make us out to be Rambo-wannabe psychos and incur more bans. They may well be right in truth - do you remember when a member of parliament had his picture taken with a legally owned levergun and a pair of blackpowder revolvers? The media instantly branded him, you guessed it, a Rambo-wannabe psycho, and he was forced to resign. That's what we have to deal with in this country.

However, there has been a campaign recently to have the pistol ban repealed. Unfortunately, it seems to have very mixed messages about exactly what we are asking for. It gained some media attention a while back but not much. The government have agreed to allow the Olympic team to bring their guns back from Switzerland/Belgium etc to train for a while before the games, but after that they have to leave the country again. Since I'm not on the Olympic team, my guns will be staying away full-stop.

 

[sterling180]

This G36UK,is the result of a Labour government that Is highly influenced by an organization like the GCN,who are at the same level as the animal-rights activists,muslim bombers,BNP and the IRA,when it comes to guns and shooting.The top-brass are intellectual thugs that control mindless masses to do their dirty work for them,like trying to assault Mr Yardley,who served his country as a British Army commissioned-officer.

 

[G36-UK]

Fosbery, Sterling:

I see your points. I admit, when it comes to pistol and rifle shooting, I'm on the outside looking in.

Given at the time of Dunblane, we all thought Hamilton was a law-abiding gun owner, I can see why everyone felt guilty. However, given SAGBNI's

I can appreciate that a NRA equivalent isn't exactly the best idea at the moment. Given, as you said, the reaction to the MP and his gun pics, the reaction would be blood in the water.

The quiet way, however, makes the gun groups look like easy targets for the GCN and their ilk to bully them into submission.

I'm not saying shout from the rooftops, but at least refuse to take any more flak for things that aren't your fault.

Let's face it, the ban needs to go for good, figuratively and literally. But for the last decade, it's been allowed to stay. How long until you draw the line and say "this far and no further"?

Okay, I admit I shouldn't be going on, as I'm pretty much an outsider on "real-steel" shooting sports. There's no firearms clubs near me, and I doubt I'd be able to attend somewhere further away regularly. But if there's a chance we could make some changes for the better, then I want to help.

Sorry if this went on a bit.

 

[Fosbery]

Preaching to the choir there

One point though: we did not think that Hamilton was a law abiding gun owner. He was a dangerous, suspicous individual suspected of child abuse and considered by everyone who met him to be unsuitable to own firearms - except for the police, who game him a certificate and let him keep it, despite complaints.

 

[G36-UK]

Ahh. I must have remembered the papers saying something about that. Sorry, but it was a while ago.

 

[george29]

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE (taken from [email protected])


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. W hen you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

 

[sterling180]

Given at the time of Dunblane, we all thought Hamilton was a law-abiding gun owner, I can see why everyone felt guilty. However, given SAGBNI's

Hamilton was done for child abuse In 1973,when he started his community job as a Scouts Master.He was currently employed as a draughtsman for an engineering company.Anyway,he was driving a minibus along the Highlands when it broke down and they were all stranded in the middle of nowhere.The monster had blankets for himself but not enough for the boys and so the boys slept in the back of the minibus,without much whilst Hamilton had a blanket.When this ordeal was over he appeared at a disciplinery hearing and was accused of incompetence and neglect of care,etc,etc and was blacklisted from that organization and consequently fired.I think he was fired by his other employer,because of this and so he started his hardware and kitchen fitting business.

This happend throughout his career and over time he built up grudges against people who had wronged him and he didn't see his own warped and irresponsible behaviour at all.He did have a genuine love for shooting and started off as a responsible gun-owner and by the book,but by the late 70s he started to become irratic and careless.

This is how the GCN can use this account of Hamiltons early days,when he was a young man,to play on peoples minds and Fosbery he did own a .22 semi-auto,on the day that he killed those kids and himself-so in theory he could have taken it and its a good job that he didn't,otherwise we would of had that banned too.Still anyone who kills innocent kids,because some of them reported him,for irratic behaviour,is scum of the earth and he was an evil turd,to boot.He was on the police records as a nutter,from 1977 onwards.

 

[Fosbery]

Yeh. I wonder if he had used his illegal guns (if I remember rightly he owned a pair of Browning HPs and a pair of .357 revolvers - one of each was legal, the others not) we might not have had the ban. Probably would have still gone through but maybe with a bit moore difficulty.

 

[G36-UK]

Ah, now I see. Sorry guys, looks like I didn't have as full a picture as I thought I did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he lie to get a permit for the .357? I thought you needed to be a member of a club that allowed certain calibers.

Again, I'm kind of on the outside here. I didn't know about the 1973 thing. I'd like to learn more, is there somewhere that documents the whole thing?