Officers from the Met’s Operation Trident, which specialises in black-on-black gun crime, are investigating.
Posted on 09/02/2004 8:36:15 AM PDT by pau1f0rd
Yesterday, I attended a televised debate on private firearms ownership at King's College Library, London, between Wayne La Pierre, of the NRA, and Rebecca Peters, Director of IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms).
It was a very civilised affair and though the audience was clearly passionate, it showed restraint for the most part and allowed the 2 debators to put their arguments forward clearly. Ms Peters' argument could be summed up as 'Guns are tools for killing people. Killing people is wrong, so guns are wrong.' She quoted various statistics to prove her point.
I doubt that I need to outline Mr La Pierre's arguments here as most Freepers will be familiar with the NRA's position, but Ms Peters was unable adequately to answer a couple of questions put to her:
Mr La Pierre asked her who would protect an unarmed individual from an attacker if they aren't allowed to defend themselves with a gun ('Will you do it, Ms Peters? Are you trained in the martial arts?'). Ms Peters indicated that she didn't believe that people were being attacked in their homes or on the streets in any great numbers in civilised countries. She quoted statistics to show that only in countries where guns are easily obtainable is there a serious problem of crime and violence. This was countered by Mr La Pierre's statistics which proved the opposite...
The audience had an equal mix of supporters for both sides of the debate. Many of the British pro-gun audience members were sport shooters. One of them told her that he had a great deal of firearms experience, and no criminal record. He wanted to know why she was trying to take his gun and ruin his sport. Ms Peters was very arrogant and patronising at this point, and told him that there were plenty of other sports to choose from!
Mr La Pierre spoke eloquently about freedom, about the lessons of history, the rights of the individual and the supremacy of the US Constitution. He reminded us that the NRA donated guns to the British people during the 2nd World War, and that guns aren't evil tools, but necessary ones in a dangerous world. It was fascinating to see some of the students in the audience giggling uncontrollably at his American ideas, especially the idea that America was a haven of freedom, which they clearly disputed. They especially found ludicrous his idea that 'good people' and 'bad people' existed in the world. Ms Peters, an Australian, told him that good and bad people only exist in the movies and suggested that he had been watching too many of them! She commended him on his bravery at coming to such a dangerous country as the UK!
My thanks go out to Mr La Pierre for a fascinating evening. A British company was doing the filming, but I expect it will end up on US TV.
The strange thing is, my real name is Francis.
The crime rate in England is much higher than in the US. Anything not nailed or screwed down in England usually gets stolen and even a lot of the nailed down stuff. The theft rate in England is astounding. The assult and burglary in England is very, very high."""
Crime in Ms Peters home country, Australia, has skyrocketed since they took guns away down there. Lurkers from there need to address this with up close and personal with FR.
Actually, she's been O/S, working for Goerge Soros, long enough to be considered (like Peter Singer) to be an American.
any of you homos touch my stuff, and i'll kill you.
any body calls me francis, and i'll kill you.
I can kill with a rolled up newspaper or a ball point pen or even my bare hands.....I would venture to say that those instruments were not designed to kill, but could given proper human intent.
She errs in this manner. The purpose of a gun is to put a small chunk of lead exactly where you intend for it to go. Be that through a piece of paper, an animal or a human.....the key is the intent of the user.
Wrong. Guillotines and electric chairs are for killing people. That is why you don't see them in the backs of police cars.
But you do see police carrying firearms. Why? Because guns are the most effective tool for confrontations which could turn violent. As long as the police have access to a pistol for everyday carry then the law-abiding citizen should have the same access.
To say that guns are for killing people - and implying that they are only for killing people - is like saying that a blender is only for mixing alcoholic drinks. The way people like Peters have stretched this argument is like saying "Why do you need a blender if you don't intend on getting drunk and running over a lot of innocent people?"
Yes, I know the old saw "guns make it too easy to commit crime". Well, I grew up in Texas and have lived out west for most of my life and not a single gun owner I know has ever commited a crime with a gun. Just because a blender makes it too easy to mix up alcohol into a concoction that COULD lead to drunken driving does not mean the prevalence of blenders has any impact on drunken driving.
Sorry on how that came out - this was my first post and I thought the "Tag Line" came out on top of the post...
It was supposed to read:
"Guns are for killing people..."
WRONG.
.......
Officers from the Met’s Operation Trident, which specialises in black-on-black gun crime, are investigating.
Morons exist in real life too.
That is an argument well made. It exposes the paradox that resides within gun control logic. A "Socrates", Rebecca Peters is not. Good post.
Interesting site. I miss "FreeBritainia.uk"
I always like "FreeBritainia.uk" did it just end?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.