For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

OP

Original post by Good bloke

And other legallly-held ones would be able to be stolen by criminals rather more easily than weapons that are not currently in existence because of the law, further increasing the illegal supply.

why though? if they're stored in steel cabinets like they are now then it will be just as hard as steeling a shotgun or a rifle, and any sign of previous criminal record will probably stop them getting an FAC initially so its very unlikely that hes going to obtain it then suddenly become a career criminal. I'm not talking about self defence at the moment im talking about putting the weapon on the already in existant firearms licence for target shooting.

Reply 702

Good bloke

19

Original post by Hardballer

why though? if they're stored in steel cabinets like they are now then it will be just as hard as steeling a shotgun or a rifle

Nevertheless, secrity cabinets are sometimes stolen from (or even taken entire) and another weakness is when the owner is carrying the weapon to the club and targetted for a mugging.

Reply 703

OP

Original post by Good bloke

Nevertheless, secrity cabinets are sometimes stolen from (or even taken entire) and another weakness is when the owner is carrying the weapon to the club and targetted for a mugging.

security cabinets are securely bolted to the wall and noones going to know you have a gun as most of the time its transported in a car or case. The reason why we're going around in circles is because of your lack of knowledge of how the shooting community works in this country. I know because I have a shotgun certificate, I had to buy a steel cabinet and spend hours bolting it to the wall and when I transport my firearm I'm never mugged. If you shot or went to a gun club you'd know this but it just seems like you're making an average public perception of this. More to the point handguns are smaller than rifles so people are even less likely to know you're carrying it.

Reply 704

Original post by Hardballer

security cabinets are securely bolted to the wall and noones going to know you have a gun as most of the time its transported in a car or case. The reason why we're going around in circles is because of your lack of knowledge of how the shooting community works in this country. I know because I have a shotgun certificate, I had to buy a steel cabinet and spend hours bolting it to the wall and when I transport my firearm I'm never mugged. If you shot or went to a gun club you'd know this but it just seems like you're making an average public perception of this. More to the point handguns are smaller than rifles so people are even less likely to know you're carrying it.

This is what makes them more dangerous. There is no need for handguns, they are more dangerous to society than others, why should we allow them?
Shoot other guns at the club.

Reply 705

OP

Original post by Emaemmaemily

This is what makes them more dangerous. There is no need for handguns, they are more dangerous to society than others, why should we allow them?
Shoot other guns at the club.

shooting handguns is fun though, and they're not more dangerous! than other firearms! at least make a factual statement in your arguments once in a while :frown:

Reply 706

tehFrance

17

Original post by Hardballer

shooting handguns is fun though

Have you shot a fully automatic? now that is fun :cool:

'I'm a huge gun fan, own three guns Beretta AL Series (not sure what number), Remington 770 Sport Rifle and a Smith & Wesson .460 XVR (back home in France) :cool:

Reply 707

OP

Original post by tehFrance

Have you shot a fully automatic? now that is fun :cool:

'I'm a huge gun fan, own three guns Beretta AL Series (not sure what number), Remington 770 Sport Rifle and a Smith & Wesson .460 XVR (back home in France) :cool:

nope not yet, maybe I'l do that when I make a visit to the las vegas gun shop

Reply 708

tehFrance

17

Original post by Hardballer

nope not yet, maybe I'l do that when I make a visit to the las vegas gun shop

Seriously it is amazing but then again shooting any gun is fun :biggrin:

Do you own anything?

Reply 709

Original post by Hardballer

shooting handguns is fun though, and they're not more dangerous! than other firearms! at least make a factual statement in your arguments once in a while :frown:

Don't insult me, I've been stating facts, stats and logical theories this entire debate.
I've explained why they are more dangerous to society, I'm not going to again. But clearly a lot of people agree, so I'm not making it up randomly.

Reply 710

OP

Original post by tehFrance

Seriously it is amazing but then again shooting any gun is fun :biggrin:

Do you own anything?

I have a winchester 1400 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun with a tactical flashlight and laser attachment

Reply 711

OP

Original post by Emaemmaemily

Don't insult me, I've been stating facts, stats and logical theories this entire debate.
I've explained why they are more dangerous to society, I'm not going to again. But clearly a lot of people agree, so I'm not making it up randomly.

alot of people who have commented here aern't really educated on the everyday use of firearms apart from the demoniastion in the media. ask alot of people in conservative american states and you would get a different answer

Reply 712

Selkarn

Whatever, I can't be bothered arguing about it no more, it is going to get anywhere. I personally believe that giving people the liberty to acquire handguns is proper. Seeing as they can already acquire hugely powerful rifles through a strong vetting process, I don't really see why this couldn't be transferred to pistols. However, I see the reasons against it, but my opinion is strong on this one. I just simply think that the trade off - relative safety vs the bonus to personal freedom - is worth it.

Reply 713

Original post by Hardballer

alot of people who have commented here aern't really educated on the everyday use of firearms apart from the demoniastion in the media. ask alot of people in conservative american states and you would get a different answer

People in America tend to be so obsessed with their right to bear arms that they don't understand any logic behind the dangers (or refuse to) and so that's not exactly a good example. (Let's remember I've lived in the USA so am probably more educated both on guns and the American society than you).

But it seems this argument has run its course. We have nothing left to say but what we already have, so perhaps we should stop.

Reply 714

OP

I'm going to leave you with something to think about
150 million people (in the last century alone) were disarmed and then slaughtered on mass by their government.

for those who are interested in statistics....

150,000,000 divided by 10,000 equals 15,000 years at the current US yearly gun death rate to match the number of defenceless unarmed people killed in that last 100 years by their government.

Reply 715

^^ But most of those were in places that are nothing like the UK. Can't really compare places with completely different societies and beliefs...

Reply 716

L-J-B

Original post by Hardballer

I'm going to leave you with something to think about
150 million people (in the last century alone) were disarmed and then slaughtered on mass by their government.

for those who are interested in statistics....

150,000,000 divided by 10,000 equals 15,000 years at the current US yearly gun death rate to match the number of defenceless unarmed people killed in that last 100 years by their government.

How many of those unarmed massacres occured in the UK.

Reply 717

OP

Original post by L-J-B

How many of those unarmed massacres occured in the UK.

During WW2 jews were shipped from Jersey and Guernsey to be exterminated. Only a few but it just shows that genocide can happen anywhere.

Reply 718

Good bloke

19

Original post by Hardballer

During WW2 jews were shipped from Jersey and Guernsey to be exterminated. Only a few but it just shows that genocide can happen anywhere.

He said in the UK. Not only are the Channel Islands not part of the UK (they are crown dependencies) but what you describe took place as an act of war, and was not perpetrated by the British government (which was the obvious intent of the question).

Reply 719