Our gun ownership laws must be relaxed; people must be able to protect themselves Watch

DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by Steevee)
Also, the AA-12 is very simple to operate owing to it's simplistic single piece body design. To whomever posted about operating it.
I posted that.

And no, it isn't.

Regarded as the single most difficult individual weapon to operate on the basis of two factors:

1. Immense recoil.

2. Jamming, misfires and internal damage due to the weapon's rate of fire, large bore rounds and large recoil.

I operated one at BASC a few years ago; in an eight-round magazine, the weapon jammed three times. The recoil of it was ferocious, and it was insanely inaccurate.
Even with solid-slug ammunition, the most common used on the weapon (a fallacy shown by many games that the weapon favors buck-shot rounds), the rounds went stray up to 20 degrees left and right of the barrel.

I've had nigh on a decade of operating firearms, starting with practice on air-rifles when I was 8/9. The AA-12 is a terrible weapon to operate, is rarely used in combat and is only shown in action films because it makes a tremendous amount of noise and has a very "Macho" image; similarly to a Vulcan Minigun.
0
reply
Bobifier
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
Krav Maga training is not illegal. Neither is training in the Keysi Fighting Method, Boxing, Judo etc. If you don't fancy that you are legally fully within your rights to teach yourself to throw knives, it's not too hard to learn.
0
reply
NaturalDisaster
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
We're not America though. Isn't it bad enough that we have knife crime? Don't give people the chance to kill from a further distance away as well for heaven's sake! If the "good people" can get guns more easily, then so can the psycho's who are going to go on mass killing sprees. Things like Dunblane will be less easily prevented if psychopaths can get a gun without any trouble at all. It's a completely idiotic idea. If you're that worried about being safe from people breaking into your house, invest in a lock. Or a stabproof/bulletproof vest.
0
reply
Fonix
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
America has guns, and also a much higher murder rate.

Surely that should be relevant?
Its a silly idea.
0
reply
lawology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by The Stig's student cousin)
If someone breaks into my house I don't care if they're armed or not I would shoot the ****er and they'd deserve it. People need to man up.
You completely missed my point. I meant that if we relax gun laws then it won't just be people who want to defend people able to get hold of guns :rolleyes:

I would far rather a burglar didn't have a gun, even if it meant I didn't have one myself. Besides, if a burglar comes with the intent of stealing my ****, he's far more likely to be prepared and to have brought a gun than me, who probably has decided I don't need a gun to watch a bit of CSI. See what I'm saying?
0
reply
SpicyStrawberry
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by isaqyi)
I firmly believe that in this country, people should be able to protect themselves from intruders, and our gun laws should be made to resemble those of the USA. In an earlier thread, I was arguing with a socialist but he was saying that he'd have no reservations about kicking down my front door and pawning my TV if he had no money himself. Now in this instance, I would have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the police to protect me. I think in cases like this, the case for gun ownership cannot be refuted. If I had a lot of angry socialists on the doorstep like the one I mentioned, the threat of a PCSO would do nothing, whereas if I came out with an AA-12 shotgun, that would be far more effective.

The USA also has a much lower overall crime rate than the UK, despite their more liberal gun laws.
No they shouldn't. People will buy them for other purposes than "protection" and use them to hurt people. Knife crime is enough, we do not need to have laws like the USA. Absolutely not.

Also you have no idea about weapons if you think the AA-12 is easy to operate.
1
reply
tieyourmotherdown
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by isaqyi)
The USA also has a much lower overall crime rate than the UK, despite their more liberal gun laws.
I would quite like to see evidence of this. I'm not disputing it, but I'm sceptical.
0
reply
Ice_Queen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
I worked at a paintball site, and if the people we gave markers to are any indication there is NO WAY I would let any of them anywhere NEAR a gun.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by K the Failure)
Give us guns to protect ourselves from... ourselves? :confused:
From the people who will acquire guns regardless of their legal status, I presume.
0
reply
Captainmal
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by The Stig's student cousin)
I do believe people should be allowed at least a handgun but only for use in the home as protection.

Morons who will terrorise people with guns will get them anyway so I don't wanna hear people saying it'll increase gun crime etc.
Why give someone a weapon they can conceal? Why give someone a weapon that not only can but is designed to inflict lethal damage at all? Ffs if you're worried about home protection legalise tasers or heavy duty tranquilisers, you don't have to kill someone to protect your property or loved ones.
0
reply
yamamotootsu
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
I totally disagree with you. I don't think I'll feel safer with armed people walking in Public. In fact, I think allowing people to carry guns will lead to MORE crimes. Just look at America.
0
reply
Ronove
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Obviously, there will be increased gun crime, but I’m not sure there would be an increased overall homicide rate.
Generally it's easier and quicker to kill someone with a gun rather than a KFC spork.
0
reply
zjs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by iainthegreat)
...and the dirt is gone
:sadnod:

The poor man's gone from the 'glory days' of this:



To this:

0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by DH-Biker)
I posted that.

And no, it isn't.

Regarded as the single most difficult individual weapon to operate on the basis of two factors:

1. Immense recoil.

2. Jamming, misfires and internal damage due to the weapon's rate of fire, large bore rounds and large recoil.

I operated one at BASC a few years ago; in an eight-round magazine, the weapon jammed three times. The recoil of it was ferocious, and it was insanely inaccurate.
Even with solid-slug ammunition, the most common used on the weapon (a fallacy shown by many games that the weapon favors buck-shot rounds), the rounds went stray up to 20 degrees left and right of the barrel.

I've had nigh on a decade of operating firearms, starting with practice on air-rifles when I was 8/9. The AA-12 is a terrible weapon to operate, is rarely used in combat and is only shown in action films because it makes a tremendous amount of noise and has a very "Macho" image; similarly to a Vulcan Minigun.
The recoil is not so immense, and assuming the correct amunition and loaing it is not particularly prone to jams.

Still very simple to operate, it requires no special action to operate. It doesn't even have a select fire switch. So essentially, still very simple as it operates from a box magazine. Or drum, but normally box.

But I would agree, the AA-12 is similar to the Desert Eagle, in that it has no real life applications not done better by other arms. I have 4 years of rifle/gun experience. And a wide general knowledge of a great many firearms, although sadly, the ones I've gotten my hands on have been very limited.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by v-zero)
If the USA has taught us anything it is that the right to own and use projectile weaponry causes both an increase in levels of general crime, and a huge rise in deaths and serious injury due to gun crime.

/Thread
Anyone daft enough to work upon the assumption that correlation implies causation, on the basis of one example alone, deserves to be thoroughly ignored.

If we're going to examine the US, it's worth noting that firearms regulation is generally a matter for the states not the federal government: the 15 states with the highest rates of gun-based homicides all have restrictive gun laws, whereas many of the states which do not don't have a significant problem with gun crime.

(Original post by yamamotootsu)
I totally disagree with you. I don't think I'll feel safer with armed people walking in Public. In fact, I think allowing people to carry guns will lead to MORE crimes. Just look at America.
In several states, there were significant rises in gun homicides following heavier restrictions on gun ownership being introduced. Now, I'm not saying that liberal firearms laws stop masses of people dying - realistically, the number of people who end up using guns for self-protection is pretty small - I'm merely pointing out that you're misusing statistics to try to justify a conclusion you've already arrived at.

In reality, America has a high degree of gun crime (and other sorts of crime too) in certain areas because it has massive social problems. There are plenty of examples of countries with relatively liberal firearms laws where gun crime doesn't present a major problem.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
No they shouldn't. People will buy them for other purposes than "protection" and use them to hurt people. Knife crime is enough, we do not need to have laws like the USA. Absolutely not.

Also you have no idea about weapons if you think the AA-12 is easy to operate.
Anyone who wants to use a gun for unlawful purposes could easily attain one. And as I said, I have not seen any convincing evidence that shows relaxed gun laws = increased crime.
0
reply
yamamotootsu
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by Captainmal)
Why give someone a weapon they can conceal? Why give someone a weapon that not only can but is designed to inflict lethal damage at all? Ffs if you're worried about home protection legalise tasers or heavy duty tranquilisers, you don't have to kill someone to protect your property or loved ones.
This.
0
reply
The Stig's student cousin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by lawology)
You completely missed my point. I meant that if we relax gun laws then it won't just be people who want to defend people able to get hold of guns :rolleyes:

I would far rather a burglar didn't have a gun, even if it meant I didn't have one myself. Besides, if a burglar comes with the intent of stealing my ****, he's far more likely to be prepared and to have brought a gun than me, who probably has decided I don't need a gun to watch a bit of CSI. See what I'm saying?
Crims are more likely to have guns as it is anyway, alright maybe not your average house burglar but people with criminal records wouldn't be allowed them so this would cut that risk and perhaps to further cut the risk only allow someone with an income above a certain threshold to get a gun as they are more likely to have possessions that are worth protecting and less likely to burgal others.
0
reply
Fonix
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Could someone provide me with any evidence that gun ownership increases crime? I've looked, but I've found no such consensus.

Obviously, there will be increased gun crime, but I’m not sure there would be an increased overall homicide rate.
There you go mate


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Americas murder rate is more than 3 times ours per capita according to this site. Wikipedia also agrees, but I don't like using it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by Steevee)
Why not have a simple test then? A test for mental and physical health, and one for proficiency. You would have to be able to demonstrate the ability to answer simple questions about firearms and gun safety, a basic knowledge of the mechanisms and method involved and so on. And a profficiency demonstration.
That would more then suffice.

Though, as you said finally, a demonstration test, that would need to be very well regulated by members of, ideally, a person with either military or lots of weapon's handling experience. Lots, of experience.

In addition, I would also seek for a person to be able to show me how to correctly maintain a firearm, how to disassemble and reassemble it. Correct cleaning procedures, correct safety checks, etc etc.

Once that's done, (say you had companies that would train groups at a time), then you'd be handed a certificate. Presenting this certificate at the counter of a firearms shop would allow the buying of one, and checks by police to ensure you had it.

Only then would a more lenient set of rules on firearms be applicable to this society.

I could fufill all of the above. I have no criminal record and would never seek to misuse a firearm. I would however, given the oppurtunity, buy one. I would like to see some sort of concealed or open carry law in effect. Or at the least, allow firearms in vehicles under certain conditions. Given my way, I would never be at the mercy of criminals, which is the way it should be.
In addition, as you may have hinted at there, anyone with a criminal record can't be allowed a firearm. Would you agree with that?

The only unfortunate downside to this is, where do we draw the line on what firearms we can possess?

No longer at the mercy of criminals, sure; would you be better with a firearm then them? Would your firearm boast a longer range, more stopping power and more accuracy?

If you had a handgun concealed in the glove compartment, what's to stop you dying at the hands of a criminal who's acquired a HK MP5 to spraying your car with 30 rounds of 9mm ammunition before you could reach it?

Criminals possessing higher grade weapons then those of the Police and Civilians is ultimately realistic now; giving everyone a gun completely throws leniency on gun laws to ****.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (459)
38.06%
No - but I will (91)
7.55%
No - I don't want to (85)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (571)
47.35%

Watched Threads

View All