Go to first unread
Back
to top
Will the UK ever reverse it's authoritarian gun laws?
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Well, if you don't want a gun, why put the country through the time, cost and grief that would be needed to legalise guns? This is not the part of our law in greatest need of the most urgent attention; let it be.
Well, if you don't want a gun, why put the country through the time, cost and grief that would be needed to legalise guns? This is not the part of our law in greatest need of the most urgent attention; let it be.
0
(Original post by SophiaKeuning)
What do you want a gun for, OP?
What do you want a gun for, OP?
0
(Original post by SophiaKeuning)
I do, baby I read between the lines.
I do, baby I read between the lines.
0
Report
#86
(Original post by Selkarn)
Because I'm a liberal person with liberal beliefs and I will always fight against you Nazi-esque authoritarians
Because I'm a liberal person with liberal beliefs and I will always fight against you Nazi-esque authoritarians
Come on, Selkarn, you know you're just being an attention whore and don't believe a word of the bs you write. I mean, if you were as liberal as you say, you'd be standing up for the rights of the people with moral objections to guns or unable to afford guns in your new Orwellian society where your position is defined by the size of your weapon. You certainly wouldn't be fighting to create that society.
0
Report
#87
(Original post by Selkarn)
Where did I say I wanted a gun? Quote it.
Where did I say I wanted a gun? Quote it.
0
1
Report
#90
(Original post by HistoryRepeating)
Drugs are very different. Its pretty uncommon for someone to use drugs to deliberately assault another person. The main function of drugs is personal enjoyment, not committing crimes against others.
Legalising drugs would cause an increase in drug use, and rightly so - its a cheap and extremely enjoyable activity with very manageable risks, but it would cause a decrease in drug -abuse- if done right, as people would find it vastly easier to get help, and taxation could fund huge amounts.
Drugs are very different. Its pretty uncommon for someone to use drugs to deliberately assault another person. The main function of drugs is personal enjoyment, not committing crimes against others.
Legalising drugs would cause an increase in drug use, and rightly so - its a cheap and extremely enjoyable activity with very manageable risks, but it would cause a decrease in drug -abuse- if done right, as people would find it vastly easier to get help, and taxation could fund huge amounts.
0
Report
#91
(Original post by JCC-MGS)
Mate you don't understand the situation with guns in this country if you think we are anywhere close to needing guns to defend ourselves. Even in the most gun-heavy areas the guns are crap, most of them are imported guns that fire blanks which they convert and they aren't powerful or accurate. Even the most sophisticated gangs will just have a few pool guns rather than having everybody carry a strap. That's only because they are difficult to come by. The US' gun politics is totally different, it's ingrained in the culture and difficult to remove. We aren't like that, we are safer for it and it would be stupid to try and import a US problem.
Mate you don't understand the situation with guns in this country if you think we are anywhere close to needing guns to defend ourselves. Even in the most gun-heavy areas the guns are crap, most of them are imported guns that fire blanks which they convert and they aren't powerful or accurate. Even the most sophisticated gangs will just have a few pool guns rather than having everybody carry a strap. That's only because they are difficult to come by. The US' gun politics is totally different, it's ingrained in the culture and difficult to remove. We aren't like that, we are safer for it and it would be stupid to try and import a US problem.
Or you could buy a semi-automatic air rifle xD which is legally allowed and probably enough to keep criminals out of your home. (I don't have one though).
0
Report
#92
Gun control doesn't get repealed; its march is inexorable. In the UK we will probably never fully outlaw firearms, and our firearms laws aren't necessarily as strict as a lot of people believe, but certainly none of them will ever be repealed.
0
Report
#93
This is probably the safest country of significance in the world, I see no reason to do anything that might change that.
0
Report
#94
I'm not sure I'd want the UK to change it's gun laws, considering we have one of the lowest rates of homicide with a firearm on the planet.
Interesting. I've heard this lots of times but something has never been explained to me, though I've asked many times.
People often talk about murders being carried out with guns, but it makes no difference how someone is killed. Murder is murder, plain and simple.
Does the method of killing have a different effect on the victim or is the end result still the same ?
Are certain murders easier to deal with for the people left behind ? Is the victim less dead if, instead of being shot, he's left to die after being beaten or stabbed ?
0
Report
#95
RE title question:
Almost definitely not. The number of people who want a ban far outweighs the number of people who don't. This is a democracy. The will of the people is what rules the land. Want to change it? Change the view of the majority of the public.
Almost definitely not. The number of people who want a ban far outweighs the number of people who don't. This is a democracy. The will of the people is what rules the land. Want to change it? Change the view of the majority of the public.
0
Report
#96
Almost definitely not. The number of people who want a ban far outweighs the number of people who don't. This is a democracy. The will of the people is what rules the land. Want to change it? Change the view of the majority of the public.
Can I ask my so many people support disarming victims of crime ? You won't succeed in using laws to disarm criminals, because criminals don't obey laws.
I mean, when you say you're anti gun, do you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces? If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really anti gun at all. You're only anti my gun.
Why is that ?
0
Report
#97
(Original post by Graham Showell)
Can I ask my so many people support disarming victims of crime ? You won't succeed in using laws to disarm criminals, because criminals don't obey laws.
I mean, when you say you're anti gun, do you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces? If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really anti gun at all. You're only anti my gun.
Why is that ?
Can I ask my so many people support disarming victims of crime ? You won't succeed in using laws to disarm criminals, because criminals don't obey laws.
I mean, when you say you're anti gun, do you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces? If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really anti gun at all. You're only anti my gun.
Why is that ?
The rules, regulations, training and intense scrutiny that members of the Armed Forces and those few armed police officers have to go through regularly in order to be deemed safe to carry such things are entirely necessary and hugely complicated. There is simply no way - especially in the current economic climate - that a similar system could be introduced for the general public.
I'm anti your gun because you've done nothing to suggest you're trustworthy. Nothing to suggest you should have a weapon.
And, it hasn't been proven anywhere in the world that the general population being armed causes the rate of crime to be lowered.
No, criminals don't obey laws. But why make it easier for them?
0
Report
#99
I'm anti your gun because you've done nothing to suggest you're trustworthy. Nothing to suggest you should have a weapon.
Why should I have to prove that I can be trusted ? If you want to live in a country where people are controlled by the government, then perhaps this isn't the right country for you to live in. Are you worried that someone may kill you, and if so, why ?
No, criminals don't obey laws. But why make it easier for them ?
That's exactly what we've done. We've made life easier for criminals by disarming the victims. Thomas Jefferson once said -
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
And, it hasn't been proven anywhere in the world that the general population being armed causes the rate of crime to be lowered
Can you please explain the 48 percent drop in the murder rate that has occurred in the United States since 1991. This has happened even though gun sales have increased and gun laws have become more relaxed.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
If guns cause crime, then the ones I owned must have been defective.
The rules, regulations, training and intense scrutiny that members of the Armed Forces and those few armed police officers have to go through regularly in order to be deemed safe to carry such things are entirely necessary and hugely complicated.
Why would a member of the public not be safe with a gun ? Do you think someone will become a maniac if they are given a gun, but will revert back to normal if the weapon is taken away ?
1
Report
#100
(Original post by Pi!)
So you think you should be free to own something that could easily harm other people?
So you think you should be free to own something that could easily harm other people?
If I use my gun to harm or threaten anyone else, I should be subject to the appropriate charges (murder, wounding, etc) and punished with prison accordingly.
0
X
new posts
