Re: Right to Bear Arms

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 1:38 am

Master Shef wrote:Yea, Limey the Rodney King Riots are definately comparable to the ones happening right now in England. Too bad the Brits don't have any way to defend themselves like the store owners (Korean ones) in the Rodney King Riots.

I need to disagree with a controversial perspective on firearm laws! :p With firearms available, I think these rioters would have firearms and the homicide rates (now and before) would be considerably higher.

**andrew** 11th August 2011, 1:43 am

LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, Limey the Rodney King Riots are definately comparable to the ones happening right now in England. Too bad the Brits don't have any way to defend themselves like the store owners (Korean ones) in the Rodney King Riots.
I need to disagree with a controversial perspective on firearm laws! :p With firearms available, I think these rioters would have firearms and the homicide rates (now and before) would be considerably higher.

You're basically saying that everyone with a gun is homicidal, which is not true. Homicide would go down if people had the means to defend themselves.

**Masta Shef** 11th August 2011, 1:43 am

LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, Limey the Rodney King Riots are definately comparable to the ones happening right now in England. Too bad the Brits don't have any way to defend themselves like the store owners (Korean ones) in the Rodney King Riots.
I need to disagree with a controversial perspective on firearm laws! :p With firearms available, I think these rioters would have firearms and the homicide rates (now and before) would be considerably higher.

Well Im going to use a SMK quote here, "Implying" that LEGAL gun owners would be responsible enough to legally obtain firearms and than riot and burn down businesses with Molotov Cocktails.

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 1:50 am

andrew wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, Limey the Rodney King Riots are definately comparable to the ones happening right now in England. Too bad the Brits don't have any way to defend themselves like the store owners (Korean ones) in the Rodney King Riots.
I need to disagree with a controversial perspective on firearm laws! :p With firearms available, I think these rioters would have firearms and the homicide rates (now and before) would be considerably higher.

You're basically saying that everyone with a gun is homicidal, which is not true. Homicide would go down if people had the means to defend themselves.

I'm not. :p I'm just saying that rioters would have easier access to firearms and they'd have the direct means to commit efficient homicide. Smile

Anyway, let's continue this discussion in another thread if you so wish.

On topic, I do think these riots are irrational, encompassing no agenda but senseless anguish or fun.

**andrew** 11th August 2011, 1:52 am

Firearms would already be easily available to the rioters, why not make them more easily and legally accessible to the people that will be targeted?

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 1:56 am

(No, not literally the legal entitlement to biologically mutuate human arms into BEAR ARMS for defense)

Your thoughts on this topic, hmm? Is it a deterrent? Does it escalate conflicts? Intensify criminalities?

**Masta Shef** 11th August 2011, 2:00 am

@Limwy You cant end the discussion with your opinion and expect me not to respond...butanyway I believe you are incorrect as this would have been the case in the Rodney King Riots. As well of course they are just rioting to reak havoc. At this point people are just doing it because they can get away with it. No sense of community or respect for the law.

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 2:16 am

Master Shef wrote:@Limwy You cant end the discussion with your opinion and expect me not to respond...butanyway I believe you are incorrect as this would have been the case in the Rodney King Riots. As well of course they are just rioting to reak havoc. At this point people are just doing it because they can get away with it. No sense of community or respect for the law.

On the incident by a sociology Professor:

"Gunfire killed 35, including eight people shot by law enforcement and two by National Guardsmen. Six died in arson fires. Attackers used sticks or boards to kill two others. Stabbings killed two. Six died in car accidents; two in hit-and-runs. One was strangled.

The violence crossed racial and ethnic lines. The dead included 25 African-Americans, 16 Latinos, eight whites, two Asians, one Algerian, and one Indian or Middle Easterner. Men outnumbered women, 48 to 5.

One of the more troubling statistics: 22 of the cases remain open, unsolved homicides. "

**Masta Shef** 11th August 2011, 2:22 am

Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 2:24 am

Master Shef wrote:Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!

The restrictions on firearms are still not stringent, in my opinion, and they fall into the black market rapidly.

**Masta Shef** 11th August 2011, 2:31 am

LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!
The restrictions on firearms are still not stringent, in my opinion, and they fall into the black market rapidly.

Yea? Well im not here to argue with your opinions on guns although facts are facts and you sir have not givin me any reason to agree with you.

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 2:45 am

Masta Shef wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!
The restrictions on firearms are still not stringent, in my opinion, and they fall into the black market rapidly.

Yea? Well im not here to argue with your opinions on guns although facts are facts and you sir have not givin me any reason to agree with you.

How are those deaths positive at all? The fact is that firearms were legal in LA during the1992's and they were not 'outlawed' as you said.

**Masta Shef** 11th August 2011, 2:49 am

Thought your post was refering to gun related deaths in England...

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 2:52 am

Masta Shef wrote:Thought your post was refering to gun related deaths in England...

No, the LA riot; sorry for not referencing or elaborating. Smile

Regarding England's homicide rates with 'illegal' firearms:

"The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population"

**andrew** 11th August 2011, 2:56 am

LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!
The restrictions on firearms are still not stringent, in my opinion, and they fall into the black market rapidly.

Not stringent? Even places that do legally sell weapons do background checks with the FBI.... If you have a spot on your record they will find it,and you won't legally obtain a firearm.

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 2:58 am

andrew wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!
The restrictions on firearms are still not stringent, in my opinion, and they fall into the black market rapidly.

Not stringent? Even places that do legally sell weapons do background checks with the FBI.... If you have a spot on your record they will find it,and you won't legally obtain a firearm.

Isn't this normally for a concealed permit, hm? Anyway:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#California

**Masta Shef** 11th August 2011, 3:01 am

Well on the flip side of your argument about the homicides, guns were used to defend against rioters as well. If it wasn't guns being used it'd be something else.

**andrew** 11th August 2011, 3:10 am

LimeyPolo wrote:
andrew wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Master Shef wrote:Yea, good point Limey, I guess that is a good example of gun control at work. Oh wait you said 35 dead from firearms in a place that guns are outlawed? That can't be!
The restrictions on firearms are still not stringent, in my opinion, and they fall into the black market rapidly.

Not stringent? Even places that do legally sell weapons do background checks with the FBI.... If you have a spot on your record they will find it,and you won't legally obtain a firearm.
Isn't this normally for a concealed permit, hm? Anyway:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#California

For every purchase of a firearm, long gun or hand gun, there is a background check. The checks are usually longer for hand guns for obvious reasons. What I meant by every purchase is for concealed carry, open carry, or just leaving the gun at home.

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 3:13 am

Masta Shef wrote:Well on the flip side of your argument about the homicides, guns were used to defend against rioters as well. If it wasn't guns being used it'd be something else.

Are you saying that firearms were necessary to defend their stores? They may have prevented a few stores being burnt (organized communities of Koreans notably), but the consequences of these firearms being available is the DOUBT:

1 - Expense of lifes (firearms are weapons of murder, defensively or offensively).
2 - Costs of escalation.
3 - Access to people of the wrong intentions.

**andrew** 11th August 2011, 3:14 am

Defensive use of firearms is not murder... its self defense

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 3:16 am

andrew wrote:Defensive use of firearms is not murder... its self defense

Someone threatens you and a fair reaction is shooting them in the face? Self-defence has boundaries, and people are prone to exaggerate their entitlement to defend with disportionate responses.

**eaustinn36** 11th August 2011, 3:16 am

On Limey's side in this debate.

Would jump in but we already had an extensive one in the past, where it was basically me (and mboddz?) versus Shef and andrew again. Debate starts on page 16 of the topic, so feel free to quote any of those posts as my rebuttal.

http://www.undead-xbox.com/t5781p225-all-bout-america?highlight=all+bout+america

**andrew** 11th August 2011, 3:21 am

Eaustin, let Limey debate, he wanted one. That debate was with you and mboddz, not him.

Limey, if someone threatens you, he OBVIOUSLY doesn't give a shit about your well being, and unless you are armed, or know how to defend yourself otherwise, you are not in the position of power. The person threatening is, and that is bad news for you.

You don't shoot them in the face, you warn them, and if necessary you shoot them hopefully somewhere that is not fatal. Your intention is to defend yourself, not kill someone.

Also keep in mind the person is not innocent. So defending yourself is completely justified.

They are the ones to blame for what happens, it is their own fault for doing what they did.

**eaustinn36** 11th August 2011, 3:24 am

andrew wrote:Eaustin, let Limey debate, he wanted one. That debate was with you and mboddz, not him.

Where did I say I wouldn't? I just said i'm not jumping in to press my points as I already did a few months ago. It's all you guys on this one.

**Limey Polo** 11th August 2011, 3:24 am

andrew wrote:Eaustin, let Limey debate, he wanted one. That debate was with you and mboddz, not him.

Limey, if someone threatens you, he OBVIOUSLY doesn't give a shit about your well being, and unless you are armed, or know how to defend yourself otherwise, you are not in the position of power. The person threatening is, and that is bad news for you.

You don't shoot them in the face, you warn them, and if necessary you shoot them hopefully somewhere that is not fatal. Your intention is to defend yourself, not kill someone.

Also keep in mind the person is not innocent. So defending yourself is completely justified.

So, a threat to you can lead to a capital punishment, personally enforced? What about disputes in which both people are threatening each other?I think any involvement of firearms as 'defense' during these situations = highly unnecessary, provoking far worst results, if a bear is not attacking you or a thug intent on murder (quite rare).

Sponsored content

Right to Bear Arms