Dead Charlton Heston

[honez 79]

Happy, so happy

... and so easily confused by end tags, grammar and spelling.

[Gwynhafyr 0]

Happy, so happy

... and so easily confused by end tags, grammar and spelling.

 

 

That made me giggle.

[Madame Defarge 21]

In fact, the only remaining argument is that they have the right to bear arms because it says so in the Constitution. It really takes an American etc..

 

This problem has so many angles that legislation might not solve everything, but I guess it really wouldn't hurt to give it a shot try.

 

We North Americans are a fractious lot, though, remember? Would the result of banning guns be the same as banning, say, booze? We tried that once by amending the Constitution. This resulted in an episode known as The Roaring Twenties. Great music, love those hats and flapper outfits, but people continued to drink alcohol. The only difference was that people were buying their liquor from different sources. So I'm wondering if the same sort of thing would happen here if we banned guns?

[Banshees Scream 107]

This is where I get into the conversation. How do I start this now ...

 

In the 1920's the underground drug economy was less harmful to it's costumers because in moderation alcoholic beverages aren't considered hazardous to ones health. The unbelievable aspect on that era was while a glass of red wine was definitely illegal (and also being purchased by society from the Mafia) everybody was legally doing ecstasy. You better believe it!

 

The cold hard fact of the matter is there is so much in this world which shouldn't be available to human kind. My personal list includes (Pharmacy drugs) .. (Body building supplements) .. and the list hits the floor. The problem with banning guns is it's not 'the guns themselves' which encourage people to commit murder ... it's the wack job mental state of the person.

 

If guns were illegal, yes, people would buy guns illegally. Would they do anything else for guns? The answer is no.

 

In this modern age the underground drug economy is run by several different organizations but the key behavior which triggers it's main costumers is something called addiction. Guns are only made of steel.

[honez 79]

This is where I get into the conversation. How do I start this now ...

 

In the 1920's the underground drug economy was less harmful to it's costumers because in moderation alcoholic beverages aren't considered hazardous to ones health. The unbelievable aspect on that era was while a glass of red wine was definitely illegal (and also being purchased by society from the Mafia) everybody was legally doing ecstasy. You better believe it!

...

In this modern age the underground drug economy is run by several different organizations but the key behavior which triggers it's main costumers is something called addiction. Guns are only made of steel.

 

Please note;

A Costumer:

 

A Customer:

[Dave to the Grave 11]

Aren't we getting a bit off topic here. Shouldn't this talk of drink and drugs be in the Betty Ford thread. This is the gun thread. And the bad Bobby joke thread.

[deadsox 891]

I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes.

I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems.

I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American.

 

I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned.

Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S.

 

Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend.

 

However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you.

 

Actually, Phantom there are a great many instances where law abiding gun owners successfully defended themselves by using firearms. You can quote all the statistics you like but the fact remains that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Think of it in terms of other rights that you may value more than this one. If I could quote statistics that indicated that in countries without freedom of speech, the crime rates were lower, would you be willing to give up that right? In the Stalinist Soviet Union for example, might they not have had a lower instance of crime than the current Russia? Is that a good reason to do away with freedom of speech? The rights we enjoy under the Constitution are very dear to us and if the opposition can change the Constitution, let them try. In the meantime, I and the rest of my friends will do what we can to protect our rights. Oh yes, and you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[deadsox 891]

The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection.

 

Actually the Second Amendment says the Americans have the right to bare arms to form militias. This was originally because there was very little formal policing around when the constitution was formed and therefore it was written in to the consitution to allow small towns and farms to protect themselves. It doesn't say that every American has the right to bear arms for self protection, that is a common misconception.

 

Actually Gwyn, your interpretation is the common misconception. Consider the question rationally, did the founding fathers really need to guarantee that the government could arm militias? Of course not. They meant what they said. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people who wrote the Constitution had just been through a bloody revolution. They appreciated that the only reason we were able to prevail (other than French help of course) was that the average citizen was a competent gun owner. I (and they) believe that it's the best defense against tyranny.

[deadsox 891]

The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection.

 

Actually the Second Amendment says the Americans have the right to bare arms to form militias. This was originally because there was very little formal policing around when the constitution was formed and therefore it was written in to the consitution to allow small towns and farms to protect themselves. It doesn't say that every American has the right to bear arms for self protection, that is a common misconception.

 

One more thing, Gwyn, the right to bare arms has to do with short sleeve shirts, not militias.

[Phantom 2,469]

I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes.

I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems.

I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American.

 

I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned.

Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S.

 

Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend.

 

However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you.

 

Actually, Phantom there are a great many instances where law abiding gun owners successfully defended themselves by using firearms. You can quote all the statistics you like but the fact remains that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Think of it in terms of other rights that you may value more than this one. If I could quote statistics that indicated that in countries without freedom of speech, the crime rates were lower, would you be willing to give up that right? In the Stalinist Soviet Union for example, might they not have had a lower instance of crime than the current Russia? Is that a good reason to do away with freedom of speech? The rights we enjoy under the Constitution are very dear to us and if the opposition can change the Constitution, let them try. In the meantime, I and the rest of my friends will do what we can to protect our rights. Oh yes, and you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

There are also many instances where gun owners have taken the law into their own hands. ie the case just a few months ago where a guy shot two burglers dead who were unarmed who were removing possessions from his neighbour's house depsite having called 911.

Or there's the case of the nursing student who shot two fellow students dead.

Or the guy who shot dead another motorist in downtown Minneapolis in some road rage incident.

Or the man who decided to shot at other patrons in a branch of Wendy's

Or the guy who decide to shoot 5 people dead in a shopping mall...

[deadsox 891]

I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes.

I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems.

I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American.

 

I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned.

Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S.

 

Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend.

 

However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you.

 

Actually, Phantom there are a great many instances where law abiding gun owners successfully defended themselves by using firearms. You can quote all the statistics you like but the fact remains that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Think of it in terms of other rights that you may value more than this one. If I could quote statistics that indicated that in countries without freedom of speech, the crime rates were lower, would you be willing to give up that right? In the Stalinist Soviet Union for example, might they not have had a lower instance of crime than the current Russia? Is that a good reason to do away with freedom of speech? The rights we enjoy under the Constitution are very dear to us and if the opposition can change the Constitution, let them try. In the meantime, I and the rest of my friends will do what we can to protect our rights. Oh yes, and you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

There are also many instances where gun owners have taken the law into their own hands. ie the case just a few months ago where a guy shot two burglers dead who were unarmed who were removing possessions from his neighbour's house depsite having called 911.

Or there's the case of the nursing student who shot two fellow students dead.

Or the guy who shot dead another motorist in downtown Minneapolis in some road rage incident.

Or the man who decided to shot at other patrons in a branch of Wendy's

Or the guy who decide to shoot 5 people dead in a shopping mall...

 

Phantom, I could give you 10 instances for every one of these but I won't bother. Your mind is made up and so is mine. The bottom line is that Americans still have freedom to keep and bear arms and I don't see that changing.

[Phantom 2,469]

I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes.

I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems.

I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American.

 

I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned.

Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S.

 

Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend.

 

However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you.

 

Actually, Phantom there are a great many instances where law abiding gun owners successfully defended themselves by using firearms. You can quote all the statistics you like but the fact remains that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Think of it in terms of other rights that you may value more than this one. If I could quote statistics that indicated that in countries without freedom of speech, the crime rates were lower, would you be willing to give up that right? In the Stalinist Soviet Union for example, might they not have had a lower instance of crime than the current Russia? Is that a good reason to do away with freedom of speech? The rights we enjoy under the Constitution are very dear to us and if the opposition can change the Constitution, let them try. In the meantime, I and the rest of my friends will do what we can to protect our rights. Oh yes, and you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

There are also many instances where gun owners have taken the law into their own hands. ie the case just a few months ago where a guy shot two burglers dead who were unarmed who were removing possessions from his neighbour's house depsite having called 911.

Or there's the case of the nursing student who shot two fellow students dead.

Or the guy who shot dead another motorist in downtown Minneapolis in some road rage incident.

Or the man who decided to shot at other patrons in a branch of Wendy's

Or the guy who decide to shoot 5 people dead in a shopping mall...

 

Phantom, I could give you 10 instances for every one of these but I won't bother. Your mind is made up and so is mine. The bottom line is that Americans still have freedom to keep and bear arms and I don't see that changing.

 

I'm sure you could give examples. But then again if it says in the constitution then it must be right. I guess if it said in the constitution that you can stick your head in the oven then there would be a lot of people that would do it.

But at least we know that our local government have got their priorities right, people are free to wander around with a concealed handgun and shoot someone if they disagree with them or if they're feeling depressed then they can go on a rampage and take out half a dozen people with them. But at least we've banned circuses with performing animals.

 

So... the semi-automatic handgun.. coming soon at a high school, university campus or a Wendy's near you.

[deadsox 891]

At the risk of carrying this on beyond reason, I will make one more reply. The great majority of gun owners are law-abiding, nice people. I know a lot of them and can speak from direct experience (that includes me, by the way). I don't think it is fair or representative to label all gun owners as "nuts" because a few mentally ill or evil people misuse firearms. As a matter of fact, a large percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who do not possess their guns legally. No I wouldn't stick my head in the oven because the Constitution says I can. I just happen to agree with this particular right (as do the majority of Americans). I also believe that if you want to take away a right guaranteed by the Constitution, you should go through the accepted procedure, not just ignore it because you don't happen to like it. This is necessary to protect all those other rights that you may actually agree with, like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. I absolutely agree with your right to dissent and work towards changing the law. I also believe that your opinion is honestly held and that you are a well meaning person. We will just have to agree to disagree and remain friends.

[honez 79]

As pedantism is my special subject, I should point out that "to bear arms" does not necessarily mean to carry firearms. It can, and in this case probably was intended to mean;

to bear arms, to serve as a member of the military, or of contending forces. eg. Religious belief prevented him from bearing arms so he served as a medic.

 

So, if they had actually used more specific language in the US constitution, then maybe this whole gun debate thing would never have surfaced. Given this interpretation then, they never intended the US to be a country where psychotic civilians roam around shooting anyone and everyone. But they did intend it to be a country where, if you disagree vehemently with the government or military, you can, as enshrined in the constitution, form a militia to actively and militarily oppose said regime. Hmm...

[Lard Bazaar 3,687]

I'm wondering what the record is for 'most replies on a thread AFTER the subject has died'?

[Godot 148]

I'm wondering what the record is for 'most replies on a thread AFTER the subject has died'?

Well Lardy this is starting to look like a long playing record, and the the needle has stuck. Your splendid contribution in the Syndey Pollack thread is making me wonder whether a pen slipped in a poorly spelled entry by one of the founding fathers and he meant to say there was a right to bare arses.

 

Now that would have been worth fighting for. Except there would probably have been a protest group calling for stricter bum control, demanding that it should be wiped from the statute book. In response Charlton would have stood before the nation, a bum held firmly in his grip, declaring "from my cold dead hands."

[Gwynhafyr 0]

Charlton would have stood before the nation, a bum held firmly in his grip, declaring "from my cold dead hands."

 

Now that is an image I could have done without.

[Banshees Scream 107]

I think there are a lot of responsible people in this world who are gun owners and don't go in parking lots and play target practice. Deadsox makes a valuable point stating how 'the majority' of gun owners are not always ..in so many words ... 'Phil Spector'

 

I'm not a gun owner so I really have no idea what the procedure is of becoming one. A rational law in my mind would be to prevent people with serious criminal records from obtaining a sniper rifle. Is that already a law? I hope so.

 

As I've already said 'it's not the guns themselves' which trigger people to go Defcon 1. The reason is because people are not healthy. If the mind ain't healthy ... the actions aren't healthy either.

 

We don't need guns to be banned ... we need psychiatrists!

[Cowboy Ronnie 77]

Actually, Phantom there are a great many instances where law abiding gun owners successfully defended themselves by using firearms.

 

Really? I can recall exactly zero news stories in which that ever happened.

[Tomb raider 9]

At the risk of carrying this on beyond reason, I will make one more reply. The great majority of gun owners are law-abiding, nice people. I know a lot of them and can speak from direct experience (that includes me, by the way). I don't think it is fair or representative to label all gun owners as "nuts" because a few mentally ill or evil people misuse firearms. As a matter of fact, a large percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who do not possess their guns legally. No I wouldn't stick my head in the oven because the Constitution says I can. I just happen to agree with this particular right (as do the majority of Americans). I also believe that if you want to take away a right guaranteed by the Constitution, you should go through the accepted procedure, not just ignore it because you don't happen to like it. This is necessary to protect all those other rights that you may actually agree with, like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. I absolutely agree with your right to dissent and work towards changing the law. I also believe that your opinion is honestly held and that you are a well meaning person. We will just have to agree to disagree and remain friends.

 

I'm not trying to be accusative but I was just wondering: why do you have guns? You seem to be a smart guy who is perfectly capable of making a well-thought and balanced decision and I just don't get it.

 

There's huge risks to having a gun in your house - hundreds of dead american kids a year are proof of that - and I cannot think of any reason why you would consider those risks to be acceptable, especially not when your potentially criminal, mentally ill or just sloppy neighbour might be cherishing the same legal privileges as you do. Of course you might keep a shotgun or pistol for hunting or sporting, but those are not part of the debate. Would having a semi-automatic and loaded gun under your pillow really add to your safety? How many Americans could say that they rescued their own lives by being able to defend themselves with armory against a rapist or a murderer? When a criminal enters your house, what's the odds of you having unlocked your safe, grabbed your gun, and loaded it before the villain strikes?

 

Two frequently stated arguments are that bearing arms is part of American culture and that the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution.

 

I'm willing to accept that you consider your shotgun a typical specimen of American life. That you so ardently place yourself in a tradition like that logically means that you believe that habit to have brought your people certain goods. Apart from your ancestors being able to defend themselves against wildlife and exterminating the native Americans, what good did the freedom to possess arms ever did to your country? I really cannot think of any.

 

I'm not an American and in my culture the ban on possessing fire-arms is never discussed. I know that Americans tend to idolize their Constitution and cling to their legal privileges - especially those that were as hard to obtain as this one. But it's a logical fallacy to defend the right to bear arms by pointing to the Constitution: ít's our right because the Constitution says so' equals 'it's our right because it's our right' and reasoning like that is not going to convince anyone who is in his right mind.

[deadsox 891]

At the risk of carrying this on beyond reason, I will make one more reply. The great majority of gun owners are law-abiding, nice people. I know a lot of them and can speak from direct experience (that includes me, by the way). I don't think it is fair or representative to label all gun owners as "nuts" because a few mentally ill or evil people misuse firearms. As a matter of fact, a large percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who do not possess their guns legally. No I wouldn't stick my head in the oven because the Constitution says I can. I just happen to agree with this particular right (as do the majority of Americans). I also believe that if you want to take away a right guaranteed by the Constitution, you should go through the accepted procedure, not just ignore it because you don't happen to like it. This is necessary to protect all those other rights that you may actually agree with, like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. I absolutely agree with your right to dissent and work towards changing the law. I also believe that your opinion is honestly held and that you are a well meaning person. We will just have to agree to disagree and remain friends.

 

I'm not trying to be accusative but I was just wondering: why do you have guns? You seem to be a smart guy who is perfectly capable of making a well-thought and balanced decision and I just don't get it.

 

There's huge risks to having a gun in your house - hundreds of dead american kids a year are proof of that - and I cannot think of any reason why you would consider those risks to be acceptable, especially not when your potentially criminal, mentally ill or just sloppy neighbour might be cherishing the same legal privileges as you do. Of course you might keep a shotgun or pistol for hunting or sporting, but those are not part of the debate. Would having a semi-automatic and loaded gun under your pillow really add to your safety? How many Americans could say that they rescued their own lives by being able to defend themselves with armory against a rapist or a murderer? When a criminal enters your house, what's the odds of you having unlocked your safe, grabbed your gun, and loaded it before the villain strikes?

 

Two frequently stated arguments are that bearing arms is part of American culture and that the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution.

 

I'm willing to accept that you consider your shotgun a typical specimen of American life. That you so ardently place yourself in a tradition like that logically means that you believe that habit to have brought your people certain goods. Apart from your ancestors being able to defend themselves against wildlife and exterminating the native Americans, what good did the freedom to possess arms ever did to your country? I really cannot think of any.

 

I'm not an American and in my culture the ban on possessing fire-arms is never discussed. I know that Americans tend to idolize their Constitution and cling to their legal privileges - especially those that were as hard to obtain as this one. But it's a logical fallacy to defend the right to bear arms by pointing to the Constitution: ít's our right because the Constitution says so' equals 'it's our right because it's our right' and reasoning like that is not going to convince anyone who is in his right mind.

 

Thank you for your respectful query, Raider. As a matter of fact, I did not own a firearm until I took up hunting eight years ago. The fact of the matter is that I never felt that my personal safety was in serious jeopardy. This is not the case for everyone, however. The current suit brought against the District of Columbia e.g., is brought by people who live in crime ridden neighborhoods and would like to make their own decisions about what makes them safer, not just accept the opinion of certain limousine liberals who live in much safer neighborhoods with armed security guards. There are also the cases of more and more women who are forced by their jobs to travel alone to secluded parking lots, late at night or in other similarly dangerous situations. If they feel that having a handgun in their purse makes them safer, isn't that for them to decide? It is definitely part of American tradition and culture to keep and bear arms (does that make it clearer Honez?) and although I keep my guns unloaded and locked up, if the situation were to change, I would have the option of keeping my shotgun more handy. It's our right because it's our right is exactly correct. Just like it's my right to express myself in unpopular ways because it's my right. I can worship as I wish or not at all because it's my right. Without guaranteed rights, we would not have the freedoms that we love and would die defending (the motto of my state is "Live Free or Die"). If the six million Jews who were exterminated by the Nazis in World War II had firearms, do you think it would have been as easy as it was to round them up and send them off to die? Although it still could have been done, it would have caused enough problems for the German authorities to have made it either very costly in SS lives or too impractical to perform. I suspect this example will be seen by many in this forum as self serving , but I sincerely believe that an armed and educated population is much harder to tyrannize. We are not as far removed from Nazi-type thinking as some would like to believe. The founding fathers put the amendment in for good reason and it has served us well. Oh, and the instances of successful defense using firearms; they are mostly in local newspapers and are not usually picked up by the national press. The NRA does a nice job of compiling them, not surprisingly.

[TAFKAG 70]

I wish Charlton Heston would hurry up and die.

[CarolAnn 924]

I'm not real sure I want to do this, but since I have always jumped in the deep end without a flotation device here goes....

 

One day, years ago, my mother was driving down a normally well traveled street in Arlington, Texas, but at the time (which was around 11:00pm, if I remember the story correctly) it was dark and deserted. She was at a traffic light, stopped, when an individual of the large male persuasion ran across the street and attempted to get in her car.

 

My mother habitually worked late at the time and habitually carried my father's Smith and Wesson .44 Magnum, which was about the same size as the gear shift of her Honda.

 

She pulled it out, pointed it at the closed window, and the individual disappeared. Quickly. Straight downward. To this day she thinks he went under the car.

 

She put the gun down, ran the light, and flew home.

 

The same thing happened to her earlier than that back in New Haven, CT, outside Yale University. Same basic scenario, same gun, same result.

 

When I was first in college I worked as a cocktail waitress at a convention center in Fort Worth. One night one of my customers waited outside the center and followed me - fortunately I was dating a cop at the time so I knew where they all had breakfast. I pulled in the parking lot that was full of Fort Worth Police Department cars and ran into the cafe - amazing how quickly the guy following me disappeared.

 

I had his license plate number so my boyfriend found out who the guy was and basically read him the riot act. Turned out he was drunk and stupidly thought I wanted him to follow me, but at the time there was someone stalking and killing women about my age in Fort Worth so it didn't really work out for him.

 

I probably would have shot the guy if I had had a gun. Can't say I would have regretted it either, but then I'm from Texas and everyone knows how bloodthirsty we all are.

[Monoclinic 39]

Bill Hicks' opinions on the NRA (ca. 2 min in)

 

I couldn't find the Bill Hicks clip I wanted but it goes a little something like this:

 

"I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the f-ck-ng word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too."

 

Bill Hicks

 

Obviously one allows for gun crime inflation in our respective nations, though I believe the difference to still be significant.

[Tuber Mirum 119]

but I sincerely believe that an armed and educated population is much harder to tyrannize.

 

I think you put it in a nutshell there, Mr. Deadsox.