Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    Yeah until they use that firepower against the citizens
    Then we're ****ed anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    Then we're ****ed anyway.
    not if we're armed as well
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x-pixie-lottie-x)
    cars are safer penis extentions....
    Considering more people die from cars than guns even in America than no they're not
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    not if we're armed as well
    We're still ****ed, because:

    • The government would have planned their assault and they will have a command structure
    • The government turning on their people would effectively signal the end of our civilisation - in my view that counts as us being ****ed
    • Armed civilians would all be out to defend themselves against government forces with united goals.
    • Even if there were no restrictions on owning guns, the state will always have access to vastly superior firepower. Right to bear arms or no right to bear arms, I doubt most civilians are going to be able to afford a fleet of tanks, for example.


    In America there is a right to bear arms, and conspiracy theorists are still terrified of the government turning on them. At best, armed civilians would be able to turn a government assault into a brief civil war. Personally I think many would rather co-operate and go quietly than get absolutely owned.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    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
    You might want to read what I actually wrote. I'm not familiar with gun laws and I frankly don't care about them, I'm also not trying to imply that a 7 year old using a shotgun is right or wrong. All I'm trying to say is that compared to America, our gun laws are strict, but when a 7 year old can get a shotgun license, they don't seem so strict afterall.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    not if we're armed as well
    Seriously? I think our armed forces have enough on their hands with conflicts across the globe without them having any intention of turning against their own country. stop being so paranoid. You do know, even in Switzerland people out of the armed forces are not allowed automatic weapons, when they leave the forces if they wish to keep their rifles they have the automatic setting on them disabled.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    You might want to read what I actually wrote. I'm not familiar with gun laws and I frankly don't care about them, I'm also not trying to imply that a 7 year old using a shotgun is right or wrong. All I'm trying to say is that compared to America, our gun laws are strict, but when a 7 year old can get a shotgun license, they don't seem so strict afterall.
    IMO they are fairly strict, but they could be better. There are real failings which, in my view, are based on the bureaucracy, lack of communication by the police and particularly the lack of involvement of the medical services in firearms licensing, and the lack of a centralised database of gun owners.

    Incidents such as a 7 year old with the shotgun license are red herrings - yes they do indicate one particularly liberal aspect of the laws when taken out of context by the press, but this is simply the way they 'seem'. You can't really characterise gun laws based on one particular aspect.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    We're still ****ed, because:

    • The government would have planned their assault and they will have a command structure
    • The government turning on their people would effectively signal the end of our civilisation - in my view that counts as us being ****ed
    • Armed civilians would all be out to defend themselves against government forces with united goals.
    • Even if there were no restrictions on owning guns, the state will always have access to vastly superior firepower. Right to bear arms or no right to bear arms, I doubt most civilians are going to be able to afford a fleet of tanks, for example.


    In America there is a right to bear arms, and conspiracy theorists are still terrified of the government turning on them. At best, armed civilians would be able to turn a government assault into a brief civil war. Personally I think many would rather co-operate and go quietly than get absolutely owned.
    Completely agree. So what if civilians are armed, being a good soldier is not about how big your gun is or how fast you can shoot. The civilian population are not trained to fight a war, and the armed forces are. If the forces really went to town on us, there's a remarkably small chance of us being able to stop them. Co-operation would take place pretty soon.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Now I see why you have loads of rep :awesome:
    You mean you couldn't tell from my thousands of highly-informative posts? :mmm:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    IMO they are fairly strict, but they could be better. There are real failings which, in my view, are based on the bureaucracy, lack of communication by the police and particularly the lack of involvement of the medical services in firearms licensing, and the lack of a centralised database of gun owners.

    Incidents such as a 7 year old with the shotgun license are red herrings - yes they do indicate one particularly liberal aspect of the laws when taken out of context by the press, but this is simply the way they 'seem'. You can't really characterise gun laws based on one particular aspect.
    The bit in bold = exactly what I'm trying to say
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    Seriously? I think our armed forces have enough on their hands with conflicts across the globe without them having any intention of turning against their own country. stop being so paranoid. You do know, even in Switzerland people out of the armed forces are not allowed automatic weapons, when they leave the forces if they wish to keep their rifles they have the automatic setting on them disabled.
    I didn't know that maybe you could show me a source?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    I didn't know that maybe you could show me a source?
    When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    This is the first sensible post from someone on the pro-gun side of the argument - well thought out, analytical, coherent, mature.
    The others have done their arguments no favours at all by making the gun lobby appear to be a bunch of gung-ho loonies who want to play cowboys and indians, rescue the free world from the baddies, act as vigilante judge and jury or fight mythical rogue governments - or all of these. Well done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This is the first sensible post from someone on the pro-gun side of the argument - well thought out, analytical, coherent, mature.
    The others have done their arguments no favours at all by making the gun lobby appear to be a bunch of gung-ho loonies who want to play cowboys and indians, rescue the free world from the baddies, act as vigilante judge and jury or fight mythical rogue governments - or all of these. Well done.
    Check this guy out. He waits until someone comes along with a viewpoint that is like his own, then tries to make out that the only reason he is commended the person is because of the structure of his argument, etc. How transparent. Seeing as you think his post is so sensible, to you disagree with him over the handgun ban?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    He waits until someone comes along with a viewpoint that is like his own,
    Did you read what he wrote? I don't think you can have as he advocates legalising of pistols in the UK. This is the complete opposite of what I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Did you read what he wrote? I don't think you can have as he advocates legalising of pistols in the UK. This is the complete opposite of what I think.
    Regardless, his viewpoint is the most similar to your own, and therefore only for that reason you commended his post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Regardless, his viewpoint is the most similar to your own, and therefore only for that reason you commended his post.
    You do talk nonsense. I made it clear why I wrote what I did, and I have made it clear that I disagree with his stance. Quite why you feel the need to pop up and put words into my mouth, ascribing motives which are clearly specious I don't know; it does you no credit. You don't make your arguments any more credible by doing this, and it highlights exactly what I said in the post you have been referring to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    not if we're armed as well
    Tanks, aircraft & trained infantry > civilians with guns. Libya kinda proves this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Friar Tuck)
    Tanks, aircraft & trained infantry > civilians with guns. Libya kinda proves this.
    Indeed.

    I find it kind of laughable that pro-gun Americans think that "armed resistance" is a valid reason for arming themselves to the teeth. You think that some amateurs with semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, maybe a few heavy rifles and possibly explosives, is going to defeat the military of a nation which spends the best part of a trillion dollars on defence? :rofl2:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Friar Tuck)
    Tanks, aircraft & trained infantry > civilians with guns. Libya kinda proves this.
    No not at all, its best to fight back rather than be sheep to the slaughter, even if you have inferior weapons, like the warsaw ghetto uprising for example
 
 
 
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
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.