Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    banning handguns for sporting use has not reduced gun crime
    That may or may nort be true - and I notice you haven't supplied anyth evidence that might support your conclusion - but it has certainly completely eliminated accidental handgun-related deaths in the UK. Compare this with the situation in the USA, where there are more accidental gun deaths per 100,000 population annually, than there are total gun deaths in all but five other countries.

    In 2007 in the USA, accidental gunshot was the tenth most common cause of deaths from unintentional injuries for children aged 1 to 4 years old. It was the seventh most common for children aged 5 to 9 and 10 to 14, and the sixth commonest for those aged 15 to 24. These are accidental deaths only, remember. Injuries are excluded. Having firearms around the place doesn't seem a good idea, does it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There weren't that many accidental handgun deaths before 1997 when they were still legal, it only took one incident (dunblane) for the government to have a knee jerk reaction and ban them all. Black powder pistols are still legal on an FAC and you could still have an accident with them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    NO! guns don't make people into killers. they're inanimate objects.
    I know they don't but if a robber has a gun and a wannabe hero has a gun then they will probably shoot at eachother. On the news the other day there was a story about 3 man gun fight in a store when someone tried to rob it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Cars can cause a lot more damage than a pistol if the user wants to cause damage.

    Should we ban cars too?
    That is a silly argument and, incidentally, you could claim the same of virtually anything made from glass, metal or wood. Cars are vital to the 21st century economy and are useful; injury and death are an unfortunate by-product of that utility. This is not true of guns.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That is a silly argument and, incidentally, you could claim the same of virtually anything made from glass, metal or wood. Cars are vital to the 21st century economy and are useful; injury and death are an unfortunate by-product of that utility. This is not true of guns.
    Guns are still a big economy and theres 70,000 jobs in the shooting industry even in this country. so you accept that life is unpredictable and that jeopradising peoples freedom won't make them safer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    jeopradising peoples freedom won't make them safer
    Nobody's freedom is jeopardised, except for their freedom to kill others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Nobody's freedom is jeopardised, except for their freedom to kill others.
    no, its the freedom to defend yourself efficiently from others, people kill anyway if you noticed
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    no, its the freedom to defend yourself efficiently from others
    That isn't recognised in British law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20."

    Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That isn't recognised in British law.
    well lets hope you or your loved ones never have to defend yourself then since its not recognised in British law
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On the other hand, guns can be legally purchased by the public in Switzerland and it still has one of the lowest crime rates and lowest gun crimes per capita in the world.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

    Tbh banning or allowing guns & banning or allowing knives is not the solution to preventing crime since the crime is a result to people's nature and mentality and that is what needs to change. They are artificial methods which may remove the means but do not remove the motives, equivalent to the aversion therapy from A Clockwork Orange.

    Gun crime, knife crime, any kind of crime are representative of a wider issue in society and that is what must be targeted.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    well lets hope you or your loved ones never have to defend yourself then since its not recognised in British law
    Self defence is. What you refer to as efficient self defence isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I admit, I only read the first six and last two pages of this, because the flames were getting to me. So many very, very opinionated people. So, my take on the matter, as a shooter and (I like to think) responsible, law-abiding person.

    I'm nineteen. I've been shooting (shotgun, air rifle, 7.62mm, 5.56mm and .22 rifles) for six years now. I'm currently waiting for a return of my FAC application, for target shooting with all the above, plus vermin control with the latter two. I greatly enjoy the sport, and have never caused nor witnessed any incident with any firearm, save one poor sod who tripped and shot himself in the leg with a blank on CCF exercise. (He was fine.)

    That said, having been to Texas and actually tried pistol shooting, which was great fun, I am rather saddened that those of us who look upon rifles and pistols (a 'gun' is an artillery piece or support weapon) as a worthwhile hobby are not permitted to own the latter, and have to jump through many, many hoops to obtain the former. I would be far happier if it was simpler, and if handguns were available.

    NOTE, however, that I said 'simpler' not 'easier'. I'd rather it wasn't 'easy' for some ****er with no aiming ability to get hold of a firearm, but equally, I'd rather not have such trouble continuing a hobby I love. (If you haven't tried shooting, and can't understand why people take it up as a sport, find yourself somewhere that will sell you a day's clay pigeon shooting and actually try it before criticising. I promise that unless you're too small to deal with the recoil, you will love it.)

    As to self-defence, if I could be confident that shooting someone who broke into my home or threatened my life or property would not land me in jail, I would do so in an instant. As it is, I would probably just hit them with either the baseball bat in the umbrella stand, or something else heavy to hand, because somehow that's more 'acceptable' as a means of defence. 'Efficient' self defence would be pretty hard to define, but 'effective' self defence is neutralising your assailant as fast as possible, as completely as possible, in as little time as possible. That goes for martial arts, shooting, or handcuffs.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    well lets hope you or your loved ones never have to defend yourself then since its not recognised in British law
    Much easier to defend yourself against an attacker with a knife (which is the most likely in this country) then an attacker with a gun to your head.
    It's not about having the best thing available to defend yourself... If guns are obtainable by anyone, the attacker has mostly likely got a pretty good one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Much easier to defend yourself against an attacker with a knife (which is the most likely in this country) then an attacker with a gun to your head.
    It's not about having the best thing available to defend yourself... If guns are obtainable by anyone, the attacker has mostly likely got a pretty good one.
    what would you class as a pretty good one then? you're argument hasn't really got a solid basis. are you saying that the attacker is more likely to have a better brand of firearm then you? a larger caliber? even if the attackers started going on a massacre with assault rifles, mumbai massacre style you would still have a 99% better chance of neutralising them with a 9mm handgun then if you were unarmed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Self defence is. What you refer to as efficient self defence isn't.
    its hard for a 130 pound woman to defend herself against a 200 pound rapist without the tools needed to level the playing field, get a clue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    what would you class as a pretty good one then? you're argument hasn't really got a solid basis. are you saying that the attacker is more likely to have a better brand of firearm then you? a larger caliber? even if the attackers started going on a massacre with assault rifles, mumbai massacre style you would still have a 99% better chance of neutralising them with a 9mm handgun then if you were unarmed.
    Possibly better gun, more likely better at using it then the average person... Because they are criminals.

    I'd rather not arm my attacker, thanks. That just means I can't escape.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Exactly, that's my point. Cars, glass, and metal are just as lethal as guns, and yet you drive cars every day.

    Incidentally, do you know how much guns cost? Do you really think someone is going to waste that amount of money on a gun just to kill you, when they can buy a kitchen knife from Tesco for several pounds and do the same job?



    False. Guns are one of the most important things in any free society. The right to bear arms is the last line of defence against tyrants. Specifically, when any Government (even a democratically elected one) becomes destructive of the unalienable rights of the population, it is the right of that population to throw off the regime (which, by infringing upon unalienable rights, has surrendered it's legitimacy). I suspect you'll come back with some guff about "The ballot box" being able to magically sprout wings and deal with the problem. A Government came to power democratically in Germany in the early thirties. Over the next decade, they waged war, sent people to gas chambers, and systematically exterminated their enemies. This was all legal according to their legislation, which was enacted by a democratically elected regime. Still, maybe you have a bullet-proof ballot box :rolleyes:

    If the Jews and and gypsies in Germany had all been armed, they could have inflicted massive casualties onto the regime. The German Army, instead of sending a handful of men to round up a household, would have literally needed an entire attack squad to fight room-to-room in each and every single household in Germany, locate and shoot the weapon-carrier, and somehow do this without antagonizing all the other gun-owners on the same street without sustaining any casualties. I truly do not understand the attitude of anyone who STILL insists that the Jews should have somehow "challenged their democratically elected government via the ballot box" instead of using arms to throw off their democratically elected regime.

    Let's take a modern example - You hear about the poor citizens of Libya being helpless against their government. Those citizens and the rebels outnumber the Libyan Army, and with the no-fly-zone in place, could turn the course of the war very quickly if they were all armed. I also think you'd see higher levels of desertion from the Libyan Army - Not many soldiers would be so keen on clamping down on their citizens if every citizen in it is carrying a gun.
    Yet the citizens of the UK manage perfectly well without them. What nonsense! You have been brainwashed by the US gun lobby, and such language is so much hyped eyewash here.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    OP sounds like he wants to just run around feeling like James Bond for a while.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 21, 2011
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.