For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Original post by Hardballer

ok take it easy pal we all make mistakes

Which is why, when those mistakes are made, we want to make sure the person making them isn't armed.

Reply 241

OP

Original post by Emaemmaemily

No he didn't need a gun. But if guns were legal in this country, he probably would have had one and I wouldn't have got away when I did. I could have been killed.
Guns don't just "protect" the innocent, they better arm the criminals and attackers... It just creates more opportunity for criminals, and makes the encounters much more likely to be lethal.

why would he need a gun to kill you? why couldn't he use a knife? choke you to death? use a blunt object? are you saying that the only reason you are here today is because he didn't have a gun?

Reply 242

Original post by Hardballer

ok take it easy pal we all make mistakes

I feel for you... I hate it when I make stupid mistakes.

That said, I support strict gun laws. If you want a rifle in the uk, you can get one, for sports or shooting game. As far as I am aware, pistols are illegal. I'm happy with that - pistols are designed for the sole purpose of killing people, and to be concealed.

Only once in my life have I ever seen (a none police officer) with a gun. It was during a robbery. It was scary, but they got £500 and no one was hurt (still don't know if it was real, chances are it wasn't).

If some idiot member of the public had a pistol and decided to play hero (over £500) then I bet the situation would have been much worse!

Reply 243

OP

Original post by Emaemmaemily

Three times more murders, 33 times more gun related deaths... and that's just deaths, not serious injuries and the number of guns used in other crimes.

I'm sure theres many fewer car deaths in north korea since most of the general populace don't own them. Should we ban cars here? those who sacrifice a little freedom for a bit more security will lose both and deserve neither

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 244

Original post by Good bloke

Which is why, when those mistakes are made, we want to make sure the person making them isn't armed.

nice

Reply 245

Emaemmaemily

18

Original post by Hardballer

why would he need a gun to kill you? why couldn't he use a knife? choke you to death? use a blunt object? are you saying that the only reason you are here today is because he didn't have a gun?

You seem to have missed my point.
He had a knife, I fought it off and escaped. If he had a gun, he could pull the trigger even as I ran away, or sooner. It's much easier to escape if there is no gun.
Of course there's still the possibility that I could have been killed... But it's easier for these encounters to become fatal with guns present.

I'd rather not talk about my particular issue any more.

Reply 246

OP

Original post by Hanvyj

I feel for you... I hate it when I make stupid mistakes.

That said, I support strict gun laws. If you want a rifle in the uk, you can get one, for sports or shooting game. As far as I am aware, pistols are illegal. I'm happy with that - pistols are designed for the sole purpose of killing people, and to be concealed.

banning pistols from being held on a firearms licence has not improved public safety one bit, since its now the criminals weapon of choice

Reply 247

moonkatt

Original post by Hardballer

I'm sure theres many fewer car deaths in north korea since most of the general populace don't own them. Should we an cars here? those who sacrifice a little freedom for a bit more security will lose both and deserve neither

Cars have a purpose, they get people about, to and from work. yes there are accidents, but a car was not designed with the sole purpose of killing and maiming in mind.

Reply 248

Original post by Hardballer

I'm sure theres many fewer car deaths in north korea since most of the general populace don't own them. Should we an cars here? those who sacrifice a little freedom for a bit more security will lose both and deserve neither

Except you are arguing that we should have guns to be more secure. And guns serve little other purpose, the data shows they make you less secure, yet we should have them for security!

Cars however are very useful.

If for example countries strict anti car laws meant everyone could more easily travel, it would make sense to implements some anti-car laws!

Reply 249

Emaemmaemily

18

Original post by Hardballer

I'm sure theres many fewer car deaths in north korea since most of the general populace don't own them. Should we an cars here? those who sacrifice a little freedom for a bit more security will lose both and deserve neither

Cars are designed to get us around faster. There are accidents, but they aren't designed for that.
Guns that are illegal in the UK are designed for the sole purpose ot killing people, or seriously injuring them. There is no useful aspect of them (like there is with a car)... Because even if you are armed (if they were made legal), your attacker probably is too.

Reply 250

OP

Original post by moonkatt

Cars have a purpose, they get people about, to and from work. yes there are accidents, but a car was not designed with the sole purpose of killing and maiming in mind.

I'm sorry were you planning on tickling to death, a crackhead hell bent trying to kill you?

Reply 251

Original post by Hardballer

banning pistols from being held on a firearms licence has not improved public safety one bit, since its now the criminals weapon of choice

Are you trying to say that the criminals' weapon of choice wouldn't have been pistols if they could be legally held? If so, what would their preferred weapon have been? If not, what are you trying to say?

Reply 252

moonkatt

Original post by Hardballer

I'm sorry were you planning on tickling to death, a crackhead hell bent trying to kill you?

Yeah, because I'm tripping over them every time I leave the house. Face it, we do not need to patrol our streets armed to the teeth. I feel perfectly safe walking about unarmed. The way you seem to be going on there is evil lurking behind every corner.

Reply 253

OP

Original post by Good bloke

Are you trying to say that the criminals' weapon of choice wouldn't have been pistols if they could be legally held? If so, what would their preferred weapon have been? If not, what are you trying to say?

If they're criminals they're not going to apply for a licence are they????

Reply 254

OP

Original post by moonkatt

Yeah, because I'm tripping over them every time I leave the house. Face it, we do not need to patrol our streets armed to the teeth. I feel perfectly safe walking about unarmed. The way you seem to be going on there is evil lurking behind every corner.

never implied that, once again its better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. and maybe you live in a good part of town, not everyone does

Reply 255

Original post by Hardballer

If they're criminals they're not going to apply for a licence are they????

So what are you trying to say?

Reply 256

OP

Original post by Good bloke

So what are you trying to say?

banning handguns for sporting use has not reduced gun crime

Reply 257

Original post by Hardballer

banning pistols from being held on a firearms licence has not improved public safety one bit, since its now the criminals weapon of choice

From my life experience its not a criminals weapon of choice.

From the statistics, its safer in this country than USA for example.

People have already made this point though, you made your points. No point in going around in circles in the matter. I would be annoyed if the government relaxed gun-laws but I wouldn't be outraged, they have always fascinated me and I would like to go shooting... (I would probably prefer to shoot rifles, which I assume is legal now anyway though)

Reply 258

OP

Original post by Hanvyj

(I would probably prefer to shoot rifles, which I assume is legal now anyway though)

sure they are(bolt action and lever action and semi auto .22's), go join a gun club in your area. I skeet shoot with my shotgun occasionally but rifle target shooting is a fun disipline as well

Reply 259