Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Scroll to see replies

Criminals already have guns. Btw, it wasn't America, it was Bradford.

i didnt say it was america, yes not many criminals have guns , nearly every crime in america involves a gun, theres no way that can be said about here because cirminals dont actually need them because they know police dont have them. and i see you cannot respond to the rest of my comment because you know its true.

Reply 481

Selkarn

Original post by Ventura7

lol, source?

Reply 482

L-J-B

Original post by Selkarn

lol, source?

Daddies brown.. None of that girly tomatoe rubbish..

Reply 483

bj_945

Original post by Hardballer

So because we don't "behave" as well as the swiss we should be stripped of our human right to self defence?

In fact I agree almost exactly with the above. My view is quite simple-gun crime goes up where there are more guns. Gun crime is bad, so guns should be banned. Switzerland is an exception where due to their lawfulness, guns simply aren't a problem. Therefore there's no need to ban them.

Firstly, let's be precise about it-it's not your right to self-defense that's being compromised, but your right to carry a gun. You can still defend yourself, and if you were caught having used an illegal gun fairly in self-defense, you could presumably defend yourself on those charges, and only be prosecuted for possession of an illegal firearm.

Secondly, the standard anti-gun idea is that in places where guns are banned, like Britain, you can be almost certain that a thief in your house is not armed with a firearm. That takes away the need to be armed yourself. Sure you must have heard this on this thread, and I think it's true. In the UK, I have never worried that people on the street in London that are getting aggressive with me are armed with guns, which is something you simply could not be sure of in the US.

Also if you truly place "libertarian" style negative freedoms above what will produce an overall good, then you are essentially condoning full-on anarchism.

In other words, libertarianism is not coherant, and should fall into Anarchism, because if you truly believe that government has no right to impose any kinds of laws, you are an anarchist. Nothing wrong with being an anarchist, but I cba with libertarians who try to straddle the fence.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 484

Emaemmaemily

Why do people keep saying "stripped of our right" to own guns? There is no right to own a gun. They are objects created solely for the purpose of maiming or killing (obviously I'm not talking about ones for sport, which are allowed anyway), and so should not be available to the general public to own and carry.
People keep mentioning how one person in the army went a bit "crazy" and went on a killing spree... If that can happen in the army, do people seriously not think it would happen throughout the population too? There's bound to be a lot more of those kinds of people... and us all having guns won't stop them going on a killing spree.
America is a major example, which people seem to want to ignore... They have a major gun culture, there is a HUGE gun crime rate and homocide rate there, and even though most of them have guns "to defend themselves" a lot of them still die, and these "killing sprees" still happen.

Making guns available for "self defense" will just arm the criminals, crazy people and incompitant people more, making the streets more dangerous, not safer... More guns = more death.
Almost every country that allows guns like this reflects these statements.

Reply 485

Hardballer

Maybe, but theres still less deaths in an armed society than in an unarmed society thats being exterminated by a genocidal government. In America theres around 11,000 gun deaths/homicides a year. In Cambodia between 1975-1979 khmer rouge killed 2 million people after bringing in a gun control law disarming them

Reply 486

Good bloke

Original post by Hardballer

It is a good thing we don't live in either country, then. Both figures (and situations) are unacceptable. We have the far, far better situation where we don't have an abusive government and also don't have the silly American attitude to firearms (well most of us, anyway).

Reply 487

anti-duck

What is really strict about gun laws in this country? That's what I wanna know, we are strict in comparison to the US but not really strict in the sense that children as young as 7 can (and have) acquire(d) shotgun licences (I'm not arguing whether that's a good or bad/responsible or unresposible thing by the way, that's another thread).

Reply 488

moonkatt

Original post by Hardballer

are you sure you were in the army?

Yes, I was in the infantry for several years, so I have experience of pistols, rifles, machine guns, anti tank weapons and mortars. Pistols are useless at range. There is no need for the general population to own fireams, if you honestly want that right, go to the states and fill your boots or join the army and get it all out of you, believe me, it looses its novelty after a couple of years. Our government is not going to turn against the general population, as much of a **** that David Cameron is, he's no Adolf Hitler, I'm pretty sure he's not planning the wiping out of an entire group of our population. Your argument about superbikes is invalid, they serve a purpose other than killing people.

Reply 489

Hardballer

Original post by moonkatt

Your argument about superbikes is invalid, they serve a purpose other than killing people.

so does my shotgun, its very useful for skeet shooting. I know you guys probably think I'm a war mongering gun fanatic but nothing could be further from the truth. I love the swiss system but I'm sad to hear that they can't keep their ammo at home. No I will definitely not join the army! the swiss don't go intervening in other countries wars, and wanting to own a gun is in no way an act of aggression, an armed populace is essential to a free society and to prevent foreign invasion and domestic genocide. None of this has ever happened to switzerland, America has never been invaded and the only genocide was against black people when one of the first american gun laws ever was passed which stopped black people owning a gun. Having a self defence force in the country or a small standing army isn't enough, in a truly prosperous society everyones a soldier and everyone is responsible for their freedom and security. It worked in Sparta and it works in switzerland. Sure America should have more education about firearms and maybe mandatory training courses before being able to acquire one like switzerland.

Reply 490

Hardballer

Original post by anti-duck

They can't buy a gun til their 18! it just means they can attend clay shoots without an induction everytime or use their parents firearm supervised, stop being so sensationalist

Reply 491

Good bloke

Original post by Hardballer

America has never been invaded

Have you never heard of the burning of the White House by the British in the War of 1812? That required an invasion to get to Washington. Reading your reasons for wanting weapons I wonder how Britain has survived all these years with being oevr-run by foreigners, given that we aren't all armed to the teeth?

Reply 492

TheFatController

As someone who enjoys sport shooting (I do targets only, I have no interest in shooting live animals) and who finds it annoying that we are no longer allowed to have pistols of any sort in this country due to the Dunblane tragedy, I find the OP's stance unhelpful beacuse it portrays all shooters as gun nuts who want the right to have a gun on them at all times. Just as I have no interest in using guns for pest control, I have no interest in using them to shoot criminals. I don't really see how they are linked. Just beacuse someone owns guns, I don't see why they are suddenly on some sort of civilian front line against criminals. I own a car, but I don't use it to drive around and pull over dangerous drivers. That's for the police.

Despite the fact that I am a shooter, I am against the idea of a 'right to bear arms'. I think that licensing is the best way of ensuring that the vast majority of people who get their hands on things which have the potential to become lethal weapons are safe. Personally, I would support an extension of the licensing system to include some sort of medical and psychiatric assessment, as is found in many European countries.

I do think that there is a case for lifting the ban on legally-held pistols, because I cannot see that it was anything other than political by the government of the time who were desperate to divert public attention from the fact that the police had wholeheartedly failed in their responsibilities to the public by not taking the Dunblane shooter's guns off him. This was despite repeated warnings from various gun clubs which he had been kicked out of (the police are supposed to have lines of communication with gun clubs and are supposed to monitor attendance - failure to attend a gun club a certain number of times a year is supposed to result in the loss of permission to keep weapons which you state that you use for target shooting) that he was not sound of mind.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 493

User570431

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.

Now I see why you have loads of rep :awesome:

Reply 494

x-pixie-lottie-x

Ok, I own a semi automatic shotgun. I want a fully automatic assault rifle.

cars are safer penis extentions....

i cant see how having more guns about would help at all... ok most gun crime with illegaly owned... but most isnt all... and if there are more legally own easier tog et one illegally..
all bad
only thing guns are good for is getting rabbit for dindins... (oh and scaring away the crows that were nesting in our trees...)
x

Reply 495

TheFatController

Original post by Hardballer

Ok, I own a semi automatic shotgun. I want a fully automatic assault rifle. you see where my problem lies?

As a sports shooter, I cannot see any good reason for owning a fully automatic assault rifle for sport shooting purposes. Sure you might have some oppportunity for rapid fire competitions, but I don't really think that they are worth it, and a lot of gun clubs would turn their nose up at you for even suggesting that. Perhaps you should be able to visit a military range on an open day and try one out, but I can't see why you should have one at home, at all.

Fully automatic assault rifles were designed for indiscriminate covering fire or mass killing. Even most of the armed police officers in this country carry semi-automatic guns (their MP5s have the auto and burst modes disabled). I'm probably going to get flamed for this but in my view it is a fundamental principle that the state should have superior firepower to its citizens.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 496

Hardballer

Original post by TheFatController

Fully automatic assault rifles were designed for indiscriminate covering fire or mass killing. Even most of the armed police officers in this country carry semi-automatic guns (their MP5s have the auto and burst modes disabled). I'm probably going to get flamed for this but in my view it is a fundamental principle that the state should have superior firepower to its citizens.