For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here
Scroll to see replies
Original post by GwrxVurfer
You misunderstand. I am aware of what a concealed carry permit is about, but I wanted to know what differences you would want there to be in the granting of a firearms license, and a concealed carry license?
And how would that work on, for instance, a Glock? A round in the chamber (necessary for self-defence) means that the gun is cocked.
No, I don't agree with that, but perhaps only pistols should be allowed as concealed-carry? And you are allowed whatever gun you like on your private property. Also, I would want there to be high punishments for anyone using unreasonable force i.e if the burglar puts his hands up when you have him in the target line, shooting would be unreasonable force, and a murder trial.
And how would that work on, for instance, a Glock? A round in the chamber (necessary for self-defence) means that the gun is cocked.
No, I don't agree with that, but perhaps only pistols should be allowed as concealed-carry? And you are allowed whatever gun you like on your private property. Also, I would want there to be high punishments for anyone using unreasonable force i.e if the burglar puts his hands up when you have him in the target line, shooting would be unreasonable force, and a murder trial.
A conceal carry weapons licence would allow you to carry a weapon on your persons in public
For self defence yes your right
Being reasonable in a semidetached house over penetration would be risk with any other ammo than hollowpoint or frangible, perhaps there would be no need to restrict firearm types, GOOD JOB SIR we will have this new firearms law down to a T
Original post by moonkatt
Funny you should mention this. I served in northern Ireland, on two tours and was allowed to carry a rifle, for self defence, but never needed to have a round in the chamber, why do you feel the need to be able to defend yourself in what are much safer times on safer streets with a weapon that is made ready? I survived being in Kosovo doing pretty much the same, as the ground war in Iraq, where the only time we would go about with out weapons made ready was when we were about to mount an attack.
The IRA aren't planning on shooting at you, or blowing you up, nor are the Fedayeen going to attack you with an RPG, so why do you need to have the freedom to walk the streets with a weapon ready to fire?
The IRA aren't planning on shooting at you, or blowing you up, nor are the Fedayeen going to attack you with an RPG, so why do you need to have the freedom to walk the streets with a weapon ready to fire?
What's your view on me buying a pistol and some ammunition and keeping it locked away in my bedroom?
Original post by Selkarn
What's your view on me buying a pistol and some ammunition and keeping it locked away in my bedroom?
For what purpose? If for self defense then I'm against it, as there is no need. I don't see the point in shooting for sport with pistols, seeing after about 15m their accuracy is rubbish.
Original post by GwrxVurfer
You'd rather he just let himself be killed?
Never thought of that, its lucky he's survived until now what with all these murderers bursting into houses.
Original post by moonkatt
For what purpose? If for self defense then I'm against it, as there is no need. I don't see the point in shooting for sport with pistols, seeing after about 15m their accuracy is rubbish.
So you were in the army
your expertise in this matter will be invaluable, alas i am only an air cadet with some experience of other weapons abroad, though clay pidgeons pretty hot
Original post by GwrxVurfer
Why do you want to do a crime rate per X amount of people when the population numbers are different? 10% of the UK population is 6 Million, but 10% of the American population is (roughly) 36 Million. Therefore "X amount of people" statistics will obviously produce skewed results in this situation. Perhaps you should be gathering your statistics in a fairer way, so as not to appear biased?
Why do you want to do a crime rate per X amount of people when the population numbers are different? 10% of the UK population is 6 Million, but 10% of the American population is (roughly) 36 Million. Therefore "X amount of people" statistics will obviously produce skewed results in this situation. Perhaps you should be gathering your statistics in a fairer way, so as not to appear biased?
You have never studied statistics, have you? A crime rate per 100,000 population does exactly what you are suggesting. It allows you to compare a large country (USA) with a smaller one (UK) on a like-for-like basis. The US rate of 4.34 non-suicide gun deaths per 100,000 population is directly comparable to the England/Wales figure of 0.18 (about 20 times higher), and is not biased; it takes account of the higher population.
The Swiss equivalent figure is 0.6 - three times higher than England/Wales, which illustrates that even the law -abiding Swidss make full use of the guns that are so handy.
In fact the US figure for accidental gun deaths is 0.36, twice as high as the England/Wales figure for all non-suicide gun deaths. That is in some ways the most significant figure of them all and calls into question all claims from you lot that gun accidents can't happen with proper procedure.
Both Switzerland and the USA also have very high suicide rates by gunshot - 60 times the England/Wales rate, reflecting the ease with which people can kill themselves in those countries because of ready access to weapons.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by moonkatt
For what purpose? If for self defense then I'm against it, as there is no need. I don't see the point in shooting for sport with pistols, seeing after about 15m their accuracy is rubbish.
I have a few reasons for wanting a handgun, for example, I am simply a gun enthusiast and love reading about how they work, I also love shooting targets, I would like some sort for self defence if anybody broke into my house (I currently have a knife next to my bed, yes I'm paranoid. That said, I would not simply shoot anyone, for example if I encountered a burglar I would simply point the gun at them and order them out of the house, then call the police), I would also like to have a collection of guns. I'm also a survivalist. I have something called a bug-out-bag/survival kit, in case something "goes wrong". My kit at the moment has things like multitools, blankets, warm clothing, lighter fluid, torches, water containers, matches and lighters, and books on survivalism, and I would love to add a small, proper handgun to it.
Maybe some of my reasons are silly to you, maybe all of them are, but I, personally, would love to have a handgun for those reasons. I am a responsible citizen, no criminal record. I simply think it's a little extreme and totalitarian to simply ban them completely.
You may want to read these:
"It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols--there weren't enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.
Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves?"
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Mafia hit man
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate
If you don't want a gun.. don't get one. But just because you don't want one doesn't mean that you should force that onto me, and deny my freedom.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Cicerao
Step 1) Research how many school and university shootings have happened in the US, where guns are widely available.
Step 2) Research how many school and university shootings have happened in the UK, where guns are really hard to gain access to.
Step 3) Make your own conclusion.
Step 2) Research how many school and university shootings have happened in the UK, where guns are really hard to gain access to.
Step 3) Make your own conclusion.
you forgot step 4) Think about the size difference of US and UK.
plus point to remember: People get sun burnt who exorcise the right to bear arms.
Original post by jammy66
Why do people other than those in the armed services and police need guns anyway, you can't do much with it apart from murder things.
Because if the government turned tyranical and used the army and police against us we could defend ourselves? I mean after all only 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments in the 20th centuary, and yes you can do alot apart from murder things, go educate yourself, ever heard of skeet shooting, target shooting?
Scenario A when gun restriction laws are in place:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a knife at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. The shop keeper gives the robber the money and the robber flees with a three-figure sum. Everybody survives.
Scenario A when guns are freely available:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a gun at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. One of two events may occur:
1. The shop keeper responds to this by making a move for his own gun, which causes the robber to panic and shoot the shop keeper in the head. The criminal takes the money anyway and escapes. As a result of this situation, the shopkeeper has been killed over a three figure sum.
2. A customer in the shop withdraws his or her own gun, and fires upon the criminal. The criminal then returns fire. Both parties are hit and an innocent bystander is also caught in the crossfire. As a result of this situation, the criminal, a vigilante customer and a bystander all die for the sake of a three-figure sum.
Scenario B when gun restriction laws are in place:
A woman is walking through an alley during the night when suddenly she is pounced upon by an attacker with a knife. One of many events may occur:
1. The attacker rapes the woman and then flees. Everybody survives, although the woman is traumatised.
2. The attacker is fought off by the woman, who escapes. Everybody survives.
3. The attacker rapes the woman and then stabs her to death. The woman dies as a result.
Scenario B when guns are freely available:
A woman is walking through an alley during the night when suddenly she is pounced upon by an attacker with a gun. One of many events may occur:
1. The attacker rapes the woman and then flees. Everybody survives, although the woman is extremely traumatised due to having had a gun pointed in her face for the duration of the assault.
2. The attacker is fought off by the woman. She escapes and attempts to flee, in which instance the attacker is able to shoot her just as she is about to round the corner to freedom. The woman dies as a result.
3. The attacker rapes the woman, who withdraws a pistol during the assault. The attacker panics and shoots her in the face before she can fire a shot of her own. The woman dies as a result.
What does this suggest?
In scenario A, the presence of guns heightens the situation to a whole new level of potential violence. The shop keeper or customers in the shop feel empowered by their possession of a gun, adopting an attitude similar to yours - "I am a survivalist and I have a gun, which makes me just as powerful as this person. I am going to shoot them in self-defence". However, in the heat of the moment they fail to consider that the attacker can just as easily shoot them, and that innocent bystanders will very likely be caught in the crossfire. The scenario had one bystander being hit, but that number could increase indefinitely depending on how many people were present in the situation. The more people there are, the more chance there will be vigilante shooters as well, which also increases the overall risk of fatality. If a knife was used by the criminal, due to guns being restricted, they would be less likely to kill someone due to everyone else's willingness to co-operate.
In scenario B, the woman may be raped or killed no matter whether she has a gun or not. The fact is that rape is a horrendous thing, and there is always a risk of death to the victim. However, if the attacker sees a gun being produced by the victim, they are much more likely to shoot her in order to preserve their own life. Unless the woman has reflexes like a Wild West cowboy, she is unlikely to fire on him before he does so on her. In addition, when guns are added to the equation the woman has a much lower chance of escape as she can be brutally gunned down by the attacker as she flees.
These common sense approaches as well as the factual counters that people have made to your argument basically leave your side of the debate in tatters. I agree with your statement that just because someone does not personally agree with something does not mean then have a right to legally restrict others from doing that same thing. However, this argument is not applicable to gun control. It works for drug legalisation and euthanasia, yes, but not for gun control. The reason for that is that if people want to use drugs or take their own life in a humane and dignified way under supervision, that is their choice and they are not harming anyone else. Therefore the option to take drugs or to kill oneself should be available to everyone, and these things should not be illegal in my opinion. But guns are a whole other kettle of fish - to make them legal would endanger the lives of others. You can't say in this instance that "If I want to own a gun as a consenting adult, why does anyone else have the right to stop me making my own decision?" The reason for that is because in making guns legal, it also allows criminals to make the decision to buy a gun. This would obviously make people more hasty to murder others in a violent encounter such as the scenarios above, and would have absolutely no positive effect on society.
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a knife at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. The shop keeper gives the robber the money and the robber flees with a three-figure sum. Everybody survives.
Scenario A when guns are freely available:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a gun at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. One of two events may occur:
1. The shop keeper responds to this by making a move for his own gun, which causes the robber to panic and shoot the shop keeper in the head. The criminal takes the money anyway and escapes. As a result of this situation, the shopkeeper has been killed over a three figure sum.
2. A customer in the shop withdraws his or her own gun, and fires upon the criminal. The criminal then returns fire. Both parties are hit and an innocent bystander is also caught in the crossfire. As a result of this situation, the criminal, a vigilante customer and a bystander all die for the sake of a three-figure sum.
Scenario B when gun restriction laws are in place:
A woman is walking through an alley during the night when suddenly she is pounced upon by an attacker with a knife. One of many events may occur:
1. The attacker rapes the woman and then flees. Everybody survives, although the woman is traumatised.
2. The attacker is fought off by the woman, who escapes. Everybody survives.
3. The attacker rapes the woman and then stabs her to death. The woman dies as a result.
Scenario B when guns are freely available:
A woman is walking through an alley during the night when suddenly she is pounced upon by an attacker with a gun. One of many events may occur:
1. The attacker rapes the woman and then flees. Everybody survives, although the woman is extremely traumatised due to having had a gun pointed in her face for the duration of the assault.
2. The attacker is fought off by the woman. She escapes and attempts to flee, in which instance the attacker is able to shoot her just as she is about to round the corner to freedom. The woman dies as a result.
3. The attacker rapes the woman, who withdraws a pistol during the assault. The attacker panics and shoots her in the face before she can fire a shot of her own. The woman dies as a result.
What does this suggest?
In scenario A, the presence of guns heightens the situation to a whole new level of potential violence. The shop keeper or customers in the shop feel empowered by their possession of a gun, adopting an attitude similar to yours - "I am a survivalist and I have a gun, which makes me just as powerful as this person. I am going to shoot them in self-defence". However, in the heat of the moment they fail to consider that the attacker can just as easily shoot them, and that innocent bystanders will very likely be caught in the crossfire. The scenario had one bystander being hit, but that number could increase indefinitely depending on how many people were present in the situation. The more people there are, the more chance there will be vigilante shooters as well, which also increases the overall risk of fatality. If a knife was used by the criminal, due to guns being restricted, they would be less likely to kill someone due to everyone else's willingness to co-operate.
In scenario B, the woman may be raped or killed no matter whether she has a gun or not. The fact is that rape is a horrendous thing, and there is always a risk of death to the victim. However, if the attacker sees a gun being produced by the victim, they are much more likely to shoot her in order to preserve their own life. Unless the woman has reflexes like a Wild West cowboy, she is unlikely to fire on him before he does so on her. In addition, when guns are added to the equation the woman has a much lower chance of escape as she can be brutally gunned down by the attacker as she flees.
These common sense approaches as well as the factual counters that people have made to your argument basically leave your side of the debate in tatters. I agree with your statement that just because someone does not personally agree with something does not mean then have a right to legally restrict others from doing that same thing. However, this argument is not applicable to gun control. It works for drug legalisation and euthanasia, yes, but not for gun control. The reason for that is that if people want to use drugs or take their own life in a humane and dignified way under supervision, that is their choice and they are not harming anyone else. Therefore the option to take drugs or to kill oneself should be available to everyone, and these things should not be illegal in my opinion. But guns are a whole other kettle of fish - to make them legal would endanger the lives of others. You can't say in this instance that "If I want to own a gun as a consenting adult, why does anyone else have the right to stop me making my own decision?" The reason for that is because in making guns legal, it also allows criminals to make the decision to buy a gun. This would obviously make people more hasty to murder others in a violent encounter such as the scenarios above, and would have absolutely no positive effect on society.
Original post by WeekendOffender
Scenario A when gun restriction laws are in place:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a knife at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. The shop keeper gives the robber the money and the robber flees with a three-figure sum. Everybody survives.
Scenario A when guns are freely available:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a gun at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. One of two events may occur:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a knife at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. The shop keeper gives the robber the money and the robber flees with a three-figure sum. Everybody survives.
Scenario A when guns are freely available:
A man is working in his shop, which has a few customers inside. All of a sudden, a masked man or woman barges into the shop and waves a gun at the clerk, demanding the money from the till. One of two events may occur:
I stopped reading right there, when I realised you missed the "one of two events may occur" for the first scenario. Way to waste your time writing that
Original post by Hardballer
Because if the government turned tyranical and used the army and police against us we could defend ourselves? I mean after all only 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments in the 20th centuary, and yes you can do alot apart from murder things, go educate yourself, ever heard of skeet shooting, target shooting?
you really expect the government to turn tyranical...?
Original post by moonkatt
For what purpose? If for self defense then I'm against it, as there is no need. I don't see the point in shooting for sport with pistols, seeing after about 15m their accuracy is rubbish.
You don't see the need for it??? I don't see the need for superbikes that can go 200mph in this country but do I want to jeopardise someones freedom to own one? no?
Original post by moonkatt
I don't see the point in shooting for sport with pistols, seeing after about 15m their accuracy is rubbish.
are you sure you were in the army?
Original post by WhiteChocolate
you really expect the government to turn tyranical...?
no I don't expect them to, but then again the jews didn't "expect" hitler to turn tyranical when he was first elected
Original post by Selkarn
I stopped reading right there, when I realised you missed the "one of two events may occur" for the first scenario. Way to waste your time writing that
Well, sorry for that mistake. If you consider Scenario B (woman being raped is obviously more likely to be killed if one or more guns are involved), then the same logic can be applied to Scenario A.
The robber may indeed kill the clerk anyway, but usually people who rob shops are not doing so with murderous intent. Their only aim is to obtain money. It is unlikely that a robber in a situation where everyone is co-operative (i.e. when the robber uses a knife and everyone else is unarmed) will kill anyway for the sake of doing so.
Original post by giantlemon
you forgot step 4) Think about the size difference of US and UK.
plus point to remember: People get sun burnt who exorcise the right to bear arms.
plus point to remember: People get sun burnt who exorcise the right to bear arms.
5) Think about the percentage or scaled number and realise it's still far higher in the US.
Original post by jammy66
Haha that's very true, suite them tbh
i think the sound of that is good tbf, for the safety of others i think something like that is a damn good idea... IMO there need to be stricter regimes on how to get a shotgun licence now!..
Haha that's very true, suite them tbh
i think the sound of that is good tbf, for the safety of others i think something like that is a damn good idea... IMO there need to be stricter regimes on how to get a shotgun licence now!.. short of having to kill 200 grizzly bears with your bare hands whilst they're handcuffed to acquire your certificate I can't imagine what would be harder. Ok maybe I exaggerate, but maybe you need to realise that taking guns off law abiding citizens won't make you safer.
Original post by WeekendOffender
Well, sorry for that mistake. If you consider Scenario B (woman being raped is obviously more likely to be killed if one or more guns are involved), then the same logic can be applied to Scenario A.
The robber may indeed kill the clerk anyway, but usually people who rob shops are not doing so with murderous intent. Their only aim is to obtain money. It is unlikely that a robber in a situation where everyone is co-operative (i.e. when the robber uses a knife and everyone else is unarmed) will kill anyway for the sake of doing so.
The robber may indeed kill the clerk anyway, but usually people who rob shops are not doing so with murderous intent. Their only aim is to obtain money. It is unlikely that a robber in a situation where everyone is co-operative (i.e. when the robber uses a knife and everyone else is unarmed) will kill anyway for the sake of doing so.
we're not just talking about muggers and petty criminals we're talking about genocide, khmer rouge didn't want to steal a few hundred pounds off the population they wanted to kill them all!
Original post by Hardballer
no I don't expect them to, but then again the jews didn't "expect" hitler to turn tyranical when he was first elected
Yes but now we have the United Nations and a worldwide law to prevent things like that... hardly expect that to happen sorry.
Oh dear so this really is about stopping genocides worldwide? so you really beleive giving guns to law abiding citizens in the UK will stop these? you know these happen in other countries right? unless i missed the last genocide here...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- can you put in your own earring straight after it has been pierced
- Rust trial: Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was 'sloppy' before Alec Baldwin gun fired
- Anyone like punk rock (green day RHCP blink 182 ect)
- edexcel alevel English lit predictions 2023
- A Level Literature Coursework; Catch-22
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- english shooting an elephant
- GCSE Year 10 - Speaking & Listening Examination
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Help with bioinformatics
- english literature edexcel a level
- Philosophy essays
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Radiography Reading lists 2024
- Do better when I ignore A-Level teachers.
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level - Predictions
- Went 34 in a 30 past a speed gun
- MORSE Versus Maths and Stats
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
