Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[The Conservative]

So a society where something you say or do may get you shot is more polite? Excuse me but I would consider shooting someone for bad manners rather impolite.

When you don't know who is going to pull a gun on you when you do makes it less likely you are going to.

Civility is a matter of perception.

Sounds more like living in fear to me.

Only if you are stupid enough to pull a weapon out in public.

[Montegriffo]

Q- what do you call a man pointing an assault rifle at you














A- sir.

[TheReal_ND]

Honestly I would love it if we brought back dueling. Some of these lying democrats could use a good duel or two for character defamation.

[The Conservative]

Honestly I would love it if we brought back dueling. Some of these lying democrats could use a good duel or two for character defamation.

It only be a duel. I can't imagine one surviving more than that.

[The Conservative]

Q- what do you call a man pointing an assault rifle at you














A- sir.

There is no such thing an an assault rifle. Only the uneducated call it that.

[BjornP]

Guns make killing people very easy, it's their job after all. If British gangs were armed with guns rather than acid and knives it's not a great stretch to imagine our murder rates would be higher than they are now.

Well, they can make killing more easy, but the will , the motivation, is what matters. Guns aren't magical. They don't mind control people to make them want to kill people.

Sure, but making it easier inevitably makes it more common. Lets say the London bridge attackers had guns instead of knives, it seems to me that more people would have died that day.
So if you are motivated to kill then a more efficient weapon would mean you could kill more people. I can't see any other logical conclusion.

Making it easier makes it easier. Easy does not equal making something more common, unless you genuinely believe that every British citizen, including yourself would go out and murder your neigbhours just like that... if only you had a gun. It's easier to kill a hundred people with a bomb than with a gun, as it is easier to kill a hundred people with a gun than with a knife.

It's also easy for you and me to pick some woman, alone in the street at night, beat her and rape her. Does making that easy make it more common? More likely? No, because it requires you and me to be willing to, to want to, rape women. Killing people with guns is easier than killing people with knives or your bare fist, but you are making an unspoken assumption that killing itself must be easy. Most people may get frustrated with their neighbour, annoying siblings, schoolyard bullies, demanding bosses, frustrating spouses, etc., and some of them may even briefly fantasize about killing them. Most don't carry out those feelings, though. So, IF they have the murderous impulses, YES, then easier access to guns makes it more likely that their intended victims will die, because stabbing someone to death isn't nearly as easy as shooting someone to death.

Your logical is sound enough, if your only concern is that wannabe murderers have easier access to more efficient tools to murder. In terms of solutions, though it is like replacing the lungs of a chain smoker every time he walks into hospital and is told his lungs are giving out, when the real problem is his smoking habit. IOW, the "fix" ought to be found in the motivations people have to kill each other and decrease those. Especially in the context of American society. Americans have developed an unhealthy safety obsession, much like you British so it's probably an Anglo thing, and it's deeply ingrained in their cultural fabric. You can't solve that, i.e. it is pointless to argue against the American "need" for owning their own person arsenals of multiple guns, rifles and shotguns. So, if you're interested in getting the US murder rate down, you would focus on analyzing why Americans kill each other that much, not with what they kill each other. They're more likely to listen to you if you present the solution as something with which they can choose to do improve their own lives and the lives of their families than just another freedom "The Man" wants to take away from them.

[Montegriffo]

I'm not sure how you stop suicidal terrorists from wanting to murder British subjects other than limiting the free speech of the hate preaching religious leaders who inspire them to do it. I'm pretty sure however that limiting their access to firearms reduces their ability and efficiency in doing so.

[Ex-California]

I'm not sure how you stop suicidal terrorists from wanting to murder British subjects other than limiting the free speech of the hate preaching religious leaders who inspire them to do it. I'm pretty sure however that limiting their access to firearms reduces their ability and efficiency in doing so.

Both are limits of essential liberties.

[Montegriffo]

The liberty to incite violence is not and should never be a right.

[Martin Hash]

The liberty to incite violence is not and should never be a right.

Your ONLY "natural Right" is your Right to Violence, which you exchange to The State for, hopefully, a society that advances your own well-being. A lot of people, especially women, are unaware of that sacrifice that men have made, taking it for granted because male policemen protect them with the exchanged violence.