Joe Hill Interview

[T|2i|34L]

I understand you point of view, and do agree with some of the things that you have said.



Guns in the hands of the right people are never a problem. But who can fairly determine who the right people are? Someone who's never even fired a gun before? Someone who's never defended house/home from an intruder?



I used to live very near Philadelphia and on several occasions my house has been broken into while I was home. Two of those times I was home when the broke in. Staring down the barrel of a Barretta .40 cal apparently not their idea of the best way to spend an evening. Before drawing my gun I gave a vocal warning for them to leave and that I was armed, what kind of weapon I had and that if they did not leave soon they would be cannon fodder. They left both times - nothing got stolen.



All I can do is guess that if I had not been armed they may have been able to steal everything in my home, not to mention possibly kill/injure me or my family. I am proud to live in a nation that affords me the freedom to protect that which is mine with deadly force. My life is mine to protect - I would not want to put my life/safety into the hands of America's police departments. Having visited England I know the situation is very different there.



It is sad that someone has to abuse that freedom and handle weapons carelessly as in this incident.

[FAF]

I am not going to comment on my views regarding weapon laws of assorted countries, as it's not worth making enemies over something as lame as that. Basically, the UK police are not routinely armed; I could be wrong, but I believe that each force in the UK has at least 1 roaming car with 2 officers who are very highly trained in the use of firearms, and can be called upon at any moment 24/7. The instances of gun crime in the UK are largely gang related, and fortunately for us it very, very, very rarely spills over into involving "Joe Public". It is desperately hard to get hold of any sort of firearm in this country, and most rifle clubs maintain all their members weapons actually on the premises. After all, if you are only interested in using weapons at a range, why would you want to take one home with you?



Anyway, enough rambling :) This case is a very sad one, as it could have led to the death of somebody who went in there to calm the situation down, and it scares the living shit out of me to hear that it wasn't just one dickweed with too much testosterone who was threatening to use a weapon, it was a whole group of clanners egging him on to do it, like the cowards they are. That's the only opinion I am going to give, as to go any further would probably get me into a lot of trouble from people who don't have the same views as me, or who would take my views out of context.

[Brutus]

lampwick wrote..

Nope, try disencourage....



Just shows you how crap the gun laws in the US are. (I from the UK)



it was lucky a shot wasn't fired, wounding or even killing someone!!



<sigh> U lot never seem to learn.........

You do understand that what he did was illegal, so gun laws have nothing to do with this. This is like people saying that everytime a gun is used in a crime in the U.K. we could say "sigh, you will never learn. Gun control does not work"

[Spoonman]

lampwick wrote..

Just shows you how crap the gun laws in the US are. (I from the UK)

It is ironic then, that gun related crime in England has sky-rocketed since the introduction of the handgun ban in 1997. And while people are not being shot all the time, there are more and more people being mugged on the streets at gunpoint.



(Source)

[FAF]

Interesting subject this, as our 2 similar yet different cultures treat the issue of firearms in 2 different ways. I think what each side fails to realise is that



(A) most people in the UK find the idea of private citizens routinely having firearms absolutely bizarre



(B) most people in the USA find the UK's apparent lack of empowerment of it's private citizens bizarre.



Both sides have to understand that because of the background of available guns/unavailable guns, the two cultures have developed in almost polar opposite ways in regard to certain cultural issues.



I find parts of "Bowling for Columbine" very harrowing to watch, in particular the video footage taken inside the high school, and also the primary school teacher sobbing at the death of her 6 year old pupil. But at the same time, I have to try to be aware that Michael Moore is selling his film to the market, and sections such as the cartoon potted history of the USA are certainly pandering to a certain section of the audience and don't fit in wholly with the message he is trying to portray in other parts of the film. The way that many of the subjects come across to the UK viewer (in particular the farmer involved with Timothy McVey) is as gun toting psychos, prepared to say anything that fits their argument. The line that sticks in my mind was "The pen is mightier than the sword, but you have to have a sword to hand if the pen fails". Contradictory statements like that certainly perpetuate the myths that many non-US citizens think that all people in the US must be like.



Anyway, just to fill you in. The case of Philip Martin was pretty f*cked up. The poor guy wasn't the smartest man in the UK, and had been burgled time and time before. I don't know what happens in the USA, but in the UK it is pretty much taken as read that most burglers run a mile when confronted by the householder. But what Mr Martin did was to hear noises downstairs, find the burglers running off down his drive, and shoot them in the back, with no warning shots. So basically it boiled down to



'Does a UK citizen have the right to commit murder to prevent the theft of his brand new Sony DVD player?'



Even us in the UK have differences as to whether this was right or wrong, but people in the UK have to admit that we have just as many f*cked up cultural ideologies as our cousins over the water :)

[MrFelix]

Spoonman wrote..

It is ironic then, that gun related crime in England has sky-rocketed since the introduction of the handgun ban in 1997. And while people are not being shot all the time, there are more and more people being mugged on the streets at gunpoint.



(Source)

isnt it also ironic that its still so much lower than in the USA despite this "sky-rocketting"?

incidentally:

making handguns illegal makes it a crime to have one.

hence everyone who had one was committing a crime.

its kind of obvious that handgun crime goes up. relatively easy to see? I mean percentage-wise maybe we can just go and blame marilyn manson, video-games, pot and pornography like some might. :S

[T|2i|34L]

He was commenting on crimes committed by using a handgun - i.e. robbery, etc... Not simply possesion of a firearm.



Bizarre it may be, but I'll continue to trust my safety to just one person - me.

[Spoonman]

MrFelix wrote..

isnt it also ironic that its still so much lower than in the USA despite this "sky-rocketting"?

I was commenting on the ineffectiveness of the ban on handguns since lampwick thought our gun control laws were "crap".

[lampwick]

Spoonman wrote..

I was commenting on the ineffectiveness of the ban on handguns since lampwick thought our gun control laws were "crap".

Hmm, here in the UK you can't even own anything major above a .22 pistol with the exception of a shottie, and even then you require a license, which criteria for obtainment is VERY strict.



Now, lets compare with US - correct me if I'm wrong but your gun laws are nowhere near as strict. In fact they aren't strict enough full stop!!!



Someone plz plz point out when there was a major incident involving guns in the UK then compare with the US. Its frikkin shocking!!

[Brutus]

Whats more ironic is it is because of the English that the U.S. has such a strong opinion on owning guns.

[Spoonman]

I was making the point that the ban on handguns and gun control seem to have little correlation with gun crime. In other words, gun control in all its current forms is ineffective. I was not making the statement that the US has less gun related crime than the UK. I was making the point that gun control laws, whether they are in the US or the UK are ineffective. Here in the US we already have the Brady Law which requires people who want to legally purchase a handgun have to wait five days for a background check to complete. It's common knowledge that the majority of criminals obtain their handguns illegally. Again, the whole "UK vs. US" crap has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

[tuckneverlasting]

Could this not turn into a flame war over which nation has better laws. Remember some poor kid admin had a gun pulled on him, which sucks no matter WHERE it happens.

[efficient]

If anyone's seen the movie, "Bowling for Columbine", you would know what the gun issue in our world is all about.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Bowling for Columbine, for those of you not familiar with it, was a "documentary" done by Michael Moore. The problem is that by the very definition of the word "documentary" it was not one of these at all, but rather an entertaining film.



The film starts out with the claim that the two boys who shot up Columbine High went to their bowling class that morning before school. It then goes on to ask this question: with everything else that has been labled as being responsible for those two being willing to kill people, couldn't we just as easily blame bowling for creating these two monsters? Afterall, it was the last thing they did before shooting up the school...



The problem is, however, that this is just the first in a long string of incorrect facts (or lies, however you prefer to word it) contained in the movie. Police reports and interviews with students show that in fact the pair skipped their bowling class that morning. However, like so very very many other claims of that movie, the "facts" simply were created or assumed, instead of researched.



In addition, there are a lot of dishonest filming techniques employed to give you impressions which are totally false. Charlston Heston, president of the NRA, is painted as a racist bigot, when in reality he was participating in the civil rights movement back in the day. At every turn, Michael Moore intentionally manipulates the audience into forming the conclusion he wants them to have, even while questioning other programs which employ this same technique.



It was certainly an interesting film, but I found watching the manipulation more interesting than what he was trying to talk about. The sad part, however, is that many, many people will simply watch that film and believe every word of it, without ever researching any of the facts behind the matter.



I did find David T. Hardy's critical analysis of the film interesting, as he goes through point by point and picks out the various falsehoods presented in Bowling for Columbine. It's not about arguing whether gun control is good or bad, it's simply stating that Michael Moore's film was simply not worthy of the "documentary" title.



http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html



It's a good read, and it reveals a lot about that film.

[rizzuh]

It really gets on me when people lecture everyone with some sort of phrase that amounts to, "Well, if you've seen 'Bowling for Columbine'..."



Entertainment should not be your sole source. Bowling for Columbine was manipulated many times to be entertaining. I think it was a really entertaining documentary, but obviously it was incredibly biased.