myol'man Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Crazy Americans and their pro-gun lobby http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskay Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Crazy Americans and their pro-gun lobby http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-18921492 Shocking, just watched some of the reports on TV. We still have massacres in this country mind you, I don't think you can necessarily blame the USA gun policy for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 I don't think you can necessarily blame the USA gun policy for this. 2009 Firearm Deaths UK: 42 USA: 9199 Mental people will be mental but its nearly all to blame on the US gun policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarf Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 If the German people still had possession of their guns circa 1939, 6 million jews would still be alive today. That is why the founding fathers of America gave every American the inalienable right to bear arms. If a murdering nutcase like Hitler ever rose to power, they had the right tools to protect their families and take their country back. If a nutcase is hell bent on killing a whole bunch of people, banning guns is not going to stop them.There are a thousand ways to kill people besides guns. For example, you can make a bomb capable of killings hundreds using nothing more than a kiddies chemistry set and the liquids under the kitchen sink. Guns are not inherently evil or harmful. They are an extremely useful tool to have, and banning them won't make one bit of difference in preventing atrocities like this because the bad guys still end up owning guns whether they're legal or not. So what is better for society.....Good people AND bad people owning guns, or just the bad people owning guns.? Gun laws need to be more relaxed, especially in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duesseldorf Citizen Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Canada has almost the same amount of guns and is nowhere close to US numbers in shootings. So I guess it's a mixture of their mindset and having guns everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 There are about 250 million guns in circulation in the US. Though it's too late to fix that, anybody who thinks it's a good thing is an absolute moron. Guns turn arguments or fistfights into killing sprees too often. That (and the low average level of intelligence) is why the murder rate is three times higher than ours. The justifications for having them are not relevant in this day and age and really never were but the drooling red necks won't let anybody take their toys off them. In any case, when there's a firearm for nearly every man, woman and child there's no way to police it. Until they're smart enough to take them out of circulation, think of it as evolutionary pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 If the German people still had possession of their guns circa 1939, 6 million jews would still be alive today. That is why the founding fathers of America gave every American the inalienable right to bear arms. If a murdering nutcase like Hitler ever rose to power, they had the right tools to protect their families and take their country back. If a nutcase is hell bent on killing a whole bunch of people, banning guns is not going to stop them.There are a thousand ways to kill people besides guns. For example, you can make a bomb capable of killings hundreds using nothing more than a kiddies chemistry set and the liquids under the kitchen sink. Guns are not inherently evil or harmful. They are an extremely useful tool to have, and banning them won't make one bit of difference in preventing atrocities like this because the bad guys still end up owning guns whether they're legal or not. So what is better for society.....Good people AND bad people owning guns, or just the bad people owning guns.? Gun laws need to be more relaxed, especially in the UK. in the state of Colorado where this tragedy happened the same state by the way that the Columbine massacre happened, you can own as many guns (handguns, rifles or shotguns) as you want to own including assault rifles (why on earth would anybody apart from the military need an assault rifle?) you can possess as much ammunition as you want, there are no checks WHATSOEVER (not even background checks) and no registration WHATSOEVER. is that relaxed enough for you?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Crazy Americans and their pro-gun lobby http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-18921492 Guns aint the problem, its the ****** nutters ability to get guns, my cousin possesses a number of weapons, but hes not gone round slotting people. There are a lot of very disturbed/strange people out there, and who shouldnt be allowed near weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 in the state of Colorado where this tragedy happened the same state by the way that the Columbine massacre happened, you can own as many guns (handguns, rifles or shotguns) as you want to own including assault rifles (why on earth would anybody apart from the military need an assault rifle?) you can possess as much ammunition as you want, there are no checks WHATSOEVER (not even background checks) and no registration WHATSOEVER. is that relaxed enough for you?. Esmond, the two shootings, plus that ******** who shot the senator, are the problem, and the inadequate checks carried out by law enforcement compound the issue However realise that local law enforcement agencies, especially those in more rural states, do not have the training that European poli ce have (Not that it stops the killing, you dont need legal weapons to do that. I doubt it would take any of us very long to buy an illegal AK47/AKM/AK74, Type 56, or M16/R4/CAR15 in any city in the UK and beyond) If you have been trained to use an assault rifle (and many hundred thousands of us have been in every country in the world), then the weapon is not dangerous, its the person who uses it, and you cannot legislate against the lunatics who go on killing sprees in every country. I would agree unlimited quantities of ammunition, and possession as a a civilian of machine guns, Rocket Propelled Missiles, Mortars and bigger weapons is very odd. I wouldnt have a problem with banning them at all, I suspect many Yanks wouldnt either. They would balk at not being allowed theother weapons though. because the right to bear arms is an unalienable right under their constitution, and millions of Yanks use their assault rifles et el, perfectly safely and responsibly. If it were legal to possess firearms here, I would keep an assault rifle, automatic pistols and a bolt action military spec rifle, as I like shooting. I grew up with guns around, and I KNOW the dangers of messing about with them. Guns are only dangerous because of the operator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Surely if its more difficult to purchase a firearm and ammunition its less likely that things like this will happen? The guy walked into that cinema with an assault rifle, 12 gauge shotgun, pistol and enough ammo to start a small war. Now if i wanted to go on a rampage in the very near future in this country, how the hell would i go about obtaining all of that then? I do agree that its very much the operator that is the main problem. Well if this is the case then clearly the U.S are not ready to be trusted with 'kid in a sweetshop' style gun regulation that allows one of its citizens to turn themselves into a killing machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciderincornwall Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 If the German people still had possession of their guns circa 1939, 6 million jews would still be alive today. That is why the founding fathers of America gave every American the inalienable right to bear arms. If a murdering nutcase like Hitler ever rose to power, they had the right tools to protect their families and take their country back. If a nutcase is hell bent on killing a whole bunch of people, banning guns is not going to stop them.There are a thousand ways to kill people besides guns. For example, you can make a bomb capable of killings hundreds using nothing more than a kiddies chemistry set and the liquids under the kitchen sink. Guns are not inherently evil or harmful. They are an extremely useful tool to have, and banning them won't make one bit of difference in preventing atrocities like this because the bad guys still end up owning guns whether they're legal or not. So what is better for society.....Good people AND bad people owning guns, or just the bad people owning guns.? Utter, Utter, Sh t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duesseldorf Citizen Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 If the German people still had possession of their guns circa 1939, 6 million jews would still be alive today. Tasteless + wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 If the German people still had possession of their guns circa 1939, 6 million jews would still be alive today. So this is a good thing? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Guns are only dangerous because of the operator. Well, duh! Stating the bleeding obvious. Arguments like "Dave down the road has a gun and hasn't shot anyone yet" are absolute lunacy. There are lots of dangerous people out there that can't control their tempers, if they had easier access to guns we'd have many, many more tragedies. Guns escalate violence to a lethal level very quickly. You categorically cannot devise a system that identifies these dangerous people well enough to be safe. So it's simple: Nobody needs a gun, nobody gets one. It's not like the USA where there are vast numbers in circulation, we should never, ever introduce that massive problem over here. If people want to own guns, let them **** off over to the states and live with the rednecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Well, duh! Stating the bleeding obvious. Arguments like "Dave down the road has a gun and hasn't shot anyone yet" are absolute lunacy. There are lots of dangerous people out there that can't control their tempers, if they had easier access to guns we'd have many, many more tragedies. Guns escalate violence to a lethal level very quickly. You categorically cannot devise a system that identifies these dangerous people well enough to be safe. So it's simple: Nobody needs a gun, nobody gets one. It's not like the USA where there are vast numbers in circulation, we should never, ever introduce that massive problem over here. If people want to own guns, let them **** off over to the states and live with the rednecks. If you want to kill someone, you will kill someone, be it with a bullet, car, knife, rope, explosives, fists spoon etc etc. Banning guns will not make gun crime go away, I would be interested to know if gun crime has gone up or down in this country since the gun laws changed. I suspect up, as those in this country carrying out gun crime, didn't have legitimate licences to hold one in the first place. Years ago I used to shoot target rifle, to a high standard. Back then there was a real knee jerk reaction to dunblane and the place down the road from Swindon. I gave up in the end as more and more gun clubs shut down. How about banning knifes then. I bet you far more people die from knife crime than gun crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duesseldorf Citizen Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Plus it's easier to shoot people if you only have do open a drawer to get a gun in your hand than first having to think about how to get one illegally.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 If you want to kill someone, you will kill someone, be it with a bullet, car, knife, rope, explosives, fists spoon etc etc. Like so many of the arguments in favour of gun ownership this is completely illogical. 1) If guns are widespread, there's a massively increased chance that violence will escalate to death. We're not talking about planned murder here, which of course you can commit with a teacup if you really want, we're talking about escalation of what might otherwise be a scrap. 2) Guns are weapons. There is no other use for them. There is no legitimate reason for having one in your home or on your person. Banning guns will not make gun crime go away, I would be interested to know if gun crime has gone up or down in this country since the gun laws changed. I suspect up, as those in this country carrying out gun crime, didn't have legitimate licences to hold one in the first place. We have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world and one of the lowest murder rates. Not allowing people to walk around carrying weapons very logically reduces crime with weapons. The knife crime rate in London is about four times that of the gun crime rate. Why? Because you can't get hold of a gun legitimately. You can't carry a knife either but they are far easier to get hold of, hence the difference. I'm not against people having a hobby of shooting, but that doesn't necessitate people being able to keep guns. They could be kept at a range/club under lock and key and never allowed off the premises. That would be fine by me. They should never, ever be on your person or in your home IMO, there's no need. Why would any sane person want to degrade the UK to the ****** up state the US is in? Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Like so many of the arguments in favour of gun ownership this is completely illogical. 1) If guns are widespread, there's a massively increased chance that violence will escalate to death. We're not talking about planned murder here, which of course you can commit with a teacup if you really want, we're talking about escalation of what might otherwise be a scrap. 2) Guns are weapons. There is no other use for them. There is no legitimate reason for having one in your home or on your person. We have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world and one of the lowest murder rates. Not allowing people to walk around carrying weapons very logically reduces crime with weapons. The knife crime rate in London is about four times that of the gun crime rate. Why? Because you can't get hold of a gun legitimately. You can't carry a knife either but they are far easier to get hold of, hence the difference. I'm not against people having a hobby of shooting, but that doesn't necessitate people being able to keep guns. They could be kept at a range/club under lock and key and never allowed off the premises. That would be fine by me. They should never, ever be on your person or in your home IMO, there's no need. Why would any sane person want to degrade the UK to the ****** up state the US is in? Madness. I can see you, have never owned a gun. Storing everyone's gun in a club would be awful, only takes a couple of people to go down and Rob it. Then you have a plethora of guns on the street, the same goes for the ammunition. When I was shooting, you had to have a gun cabinet that had to be bolted on to two internal walls, you needed heavy duty pad locks. The ammunition could not be stored in the same cabinet as the gun, nor could the bolt, and also had to be under lock and key. You had police check that it was secure enough. Now I do not agree with gun ownership for all like in America, but our old gun laws were pretty good to be fair. Especially if caught with more guns than were stated on your license. Fact of the matter is, there is little chance of killing someone on the spur of the moment, the hassle of opening everything up, assembling it, by the time you had done that, well there was a good chance you had had a good word with yourself. If you planned to go and kill, you would do that with a gun, be it legal or illegal, you won't stop it, you can pick up cheap illegal hand guns for pocket money nowadays. But the knee jerk reaction to banning guns was ridiculous. The law for owning and storing them, made virtually any other off the cuff use of anything else easier for a non premeditated attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I can see you, have never owned a gun. Storing everyone's gun in a club would be awful, only takes a couple of people to go down and Rob it. Then you have a plethora of guns on the street, the same goes for the ammunition. You can make this nearly impossible by having the premises properly secured, far more economical and easy to do in one place than in the home. Now I do not agree with gun ownership for all like in America, but our old gun laws were pretty good to be fair. Especially if caught with more guns than were stated on your license. Fact of the matter is, there is little chance of killing someone on the spur of the moment, the hassle of opening everything up, assembling it, by the time you had done that, well there was a good chance you had had a good word with yourself. Well, that's precisely what I was arguing against when you replied.... I don't accept there's ever any need for them in the home though, no matter the requirements for storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 You can make this nearly impossible by having the premises properly secured, far more economical and easy to do in one place than in the home. Well, that's precisely what I was arguing against when you replied.... I don't accept there's ever any need for them in the home though, no matter the requirements for storage. Locking guns up to that level of security is not economical, it is also, less safe as I have said before. If people want guns, and know where a gun club is, why make it easy for them? Either way, both ways of storing them, without bolt, or ammunition together, is far dafer, no bolt, gun is useless. Then you also need the right calibre ammunition. If a secure are got broken into, and all guns stolen, who is to blame? Who is responsible for holding all the info of all guns held there? Yes I have been a member of many gun clubs, some of which had the facility to lock up guns, but for the purpose of keeping guns apart, having the ability to keep the bolt on you, at work where ever, pretty much makes the gun useless. Many people often locked up ammunition on the site of the gun club. Making complete ownership even safer. The need to hold it all together on one site, make absolutely no sense whatsoever in terms of making it safer. It would be far easier to steal a car off the street and mow a group of people over. But didn't you say you saw no need for anyone owning a gun in the UK? And if they did they should bugger off, or words to that effect and join the rednecks in america? To me that would suggest to me, that you believe gun control in the UK is similar to the US, which it is nothing like. A knee jerk reaction in the UK to shootings by unlicenced illegal gun holders, has cost people thousands and has effectively made people (who can still afford to do it) move abroad, to carry on with a safe, controlled hobby, because the pc brigade decided to get their knickers in a twist. Our once great Olympic shooting team has been decimated due to not being able to shoot, or forced to shoot abroad. I'm sorry, your attitude to legitimate gun owners to go and move in with the rednecks is way off the mark, seems like you are commentating on gun ownership in the UK, when you don't really know the ins and outs of it, just an opinion on the high level scaremongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Locking guns up to that level of security is not economical, it is also, less safe as I have said before. If people want guns, and know where a gun club is, why make it easy for them? Either way, both ways of storing them, without bolt, or ammunition together, is far dafer, no bolt, gun is useless. Then you also need the right calibre ammunition. If a secure are got broken into, and all guns stolen, who is to blame? Who is responsible for holding all the info of all guns held there? Yes I have been a member of many gun clubs, some of which had the facility to lock up guns, but for the purpose of keeping guns apart, having the ability to keep the bolt on you, at work where ever, pretty much makes the gun useless. Many people often locked up ammunition on the site of the gun club. Making complete ownership even safer. The need to hold it all together on one site, make absolutely no sense whatsoever in terms of making it safer. It would be far easier to steal a car off the street and mow a group of people over. But didn't you say you saw no need for anyone owning a gun in the UK? And if they did they should bugger off, or words to that effect and join the rednecks in america? To me that would suggest to me, that you believe gun control in the UK is similar to the US, which it is nothing like. A knee jerk reaction in the UK to shootings by unlicenced illegal gun holders, has cost people thousands and has effectively made people (who can still afford to do it) move abroad, to carry on with a safe, controlled hobby, because the pc brigade decided to get their knickers in a twist. Our once great Olympic shooting team has been decimated due to not being able to shoot, or forced to shoot abroad. I'm sorry, your attitude to legitimate gun owners to go and move in with the rednecks is way off the mark, seems like you are commentating on gun ownership in the UK, when you don't really know the ins and outs of it, just an opinion on the high level scaremongering. You are completely misinterpreting what I posted by taking it out of context. I KNOW gun ownership is far more controlled here than the USA, I was arguing against people suggesting it become as lax as there. Please read the thread before talking bollocks about scaremongering. I could equally point at the lack of logic in your posts and suggest you're simply heavily biased because it used to be your hobby? Keeping guns at clubs is obviously more economical than having police check individual's homes, having each individual gun owner get gun lockers fitted, and maintaining a licensing system. It can be made far safer by only allowing clubs to own guns, shooters to use them on a loan basis at clubs and placing more stringent security requirements on clubs than you can on private individuals (e.g. guards, timelocked safes). I haven't yet heard a reason people need to have guns at home or on their person from you or anybody else that stands up to basic scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Guns are not inherently evil or harmful. They are an extremely useful tool to have, and banning them won't make one bit of difference in preventing atrocities like this because the bad guys still end up owning guns whether they're legal or not. So what is better for society.....Good people AND bad people owning guns, or just the bad people owning guns.? How are guns useful? I can't think of any benefit to them unless it is to do with violence? You don't need to go hunting anymore so what would you use it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 How are guns useful? I can't think of any benefit to them unless it is to do with violence? You don't need to go hunting anymore so what would you use it for? Umm target rifle, as in what we used to be good in at the Olympics Ummmm Clay pigeon Shooting Ummm Killing vermin on farm estates I could go on!!! You seem a little short sighted Tins, it may have escaped your notice, but guns have other uses than blowing someones head off!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Umm target rifle, as in what we used to be good in at the Olympics Ummmm Clay pigeon Shooting Ummm Killing vermin on farm estates I could go on!!! You seem a little short sighted Tins, it may have escaped your notice, but guns have other uses than blowing someones head off!!!! Well you say useful, but I don't do any of them, or have come across a situation when I am going to do one of them. You don't go clay pigeon shooting and go "oh, a gun would be really useful now". Most of those situations you have a gun for anyway, useful would be a rainproof bbq cover for when your camping, something you haven't already got but could use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Well you say useful, but I don't do any of them, or have come across a situation when I am going to do one of them. You don't go clay pigeon shooting and go "oh, a gun would be really useful now". Most of those situations you have a gun for anyway, useful would be a rainproof bbq cover for when your camping, something you haven't already got but could use. Correct, you don't do any of them, so they are not useful to you. There are plenty nof people out there who they would be useful for. Fish are not useful to me, as I don't like the taste, I am not saying, why do we need fish, they are not useful for anything As for the BBQ analogy, if you are prepared you have one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Correct, you don't do any of them, so they are not useful to you. There are plenty nof people out there who they would be useful for. Fish are not useful to me, as I don't like the taste, I am not saying, why do we need fish, they are not useful for anything As for the BBQ analogy, if you are prepared you have one What would a gun be useful, which doesn't include doing shooting sports. For rats etc poison is more useful. I don't know if you are trolling now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 What would a gun be useful, which doesn't include doing shooting sports. For rats etc poison is more useful. I don't know if you are trolling now. Foxes, badgers etc etc in the countryside. People may not like it or agree with it, and I don't, but farmers will use them for protecting live stock. How do you think pheasant is killed, for selling as meat, for example? Horses are often put down with a shot to the head. I think people look at guns too much from a city perspective As for trolling, get real, i have better things to do with my time than troll people I don't know, if you mistake a point in a debate for trolling, I feel for you mate, I really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Umm target rifle, as in what we used to be good in at the Olympics Ummmm Clay pigeon Shooting Ummm Killing vermin on farm estates I could go on!!! You seem a little short sighted Tins, it may have escaped your notice, but guns have other uses than blowing someones head off!!!! Yes, so in addition to blowing someone's head off the other useful purposes for guns we've now got are pretending to blow someone's head off for sport, pretending to blow a bird's head off for sport, or blowing an animal's head off? Look if people want to go shooting guns for their own enjoyment at carefully secured clubs, that's fine with me so long as they aren't allowed to have them at home or in public. But let's stop pretending eh? Useful - nope - flimsy excuses at best. Pest control or putting down horses - poison and bolt guns. Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Foxes, badgers etc etc in the countryside. People may not like it or agree with it, and I don't, but farmers will use them for protecting live stock. How do you think pheasant is killed, for selling as meat, for example? Horses are often put down with a shot to the head. I think people look at guns too much from a city perspective As for trolling, get real, i have better things to do with my time than troll people I don't know, if you mistake a point in a debate for trolling, I feel for you mate, I really do. So people should be allowed guns to kill foxes and badgers and put down horses? There is other way to kill things, plus it still doesn't make the gun "useful" to the average person. Gun's shouldn't be allowed unless totally needed. Poison kills most animals, bolt guns are used for horses. My point is people shouldn't be allowed them unless in a secure environment. I think you are trolling cause I bet you do none of the things you have said a gun is "useful" for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.