Right then, so unless you've first hand experience with something then you can't have a vaild opinion on it? Bollocks. Bigoted bollocks.

I don't care about the responsible gun owners. It's the irresponsible ones that will end up killing someone. But what's the odd death as long as you get to shoot stuff at the weekends?

so, that'd basically be someone who likes owning guns, wants to own guns and sees no reason why others shouldn't be allowed to do so.

essentially, someone who would agree with you without question.

and still you continue with the video games as justification. it is simply not a valid comparison.

you're damn right this is something that won't be agreed upon, especially as your definition of "agree" is "own a gun, join a club and go target shooting".
winny - much like power then - those that seek it should be kept as far from it as possible.

but, and hey, i know it's the OT forum, this is pretty much about gun ownership in the UK.

regardless, have you even considered how insane it would be to flood even more firearms into unstable third world countries. that queue for aid being distributed? with everyone holding a gun as the last sack is handed out with a queue still tailing away?

this really sounds like survivalist fantasy tbh.

He's right. I think he brings up a very important point the issue is irresponsible ones. I think we can and do all agree that no matter what the topic is if it involves someone who is irresponsible then it's a problem.

What is the common denominator here? We have irresponsible drinkers. We have irresponsible people procreating more irresponsible persons.

What do these have in common?

I think that's what we need to focus on. That is exactly the problem. :)

quoting one of my favourite movies, "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks", so yes, we all have an opinion, the point is whether this opinion is an informed one or not.

I can say "hey, I don't like what you guys at the Large Hadron Collider are doing cos you're gonna make a black hole and we'll be all swallowed by it", but it's obvious that if my opinion is not based on substantial evidence they might as well laugh at it. Then the Government gets scared cos I start a mad campaign against it, the population really thinks the LHC will cause the Armageddon, and they decide to shut it down for good..

And yes, before you say it I know that there's no comparison between firearms and the LHC, I'm just making an example on how the will of a majority can indeed be wrong and driven by laziness and sheep attitude (it's easier to read on The Sun about the remote theoretical dangerous potential of a piece of machinery we don't actually know anything about than getting a PhD in Astrophysics..)

Yes, society makes choices, but you know they're not all good ones, and the disarming the population is a bad, bad one.

your statement clearly shows you're not reading what I write, or that my English is not good enough, or that you don't understand your own language. Read my posts again and please give me a valid reason why people licensed from the institution couldn't own semiauto full bore firearms and pistols.
no, my definition of agree is respecting the fact that some people can own certain firearms and that you don't have to fear from them, since they won't jump on you and shoot your head off. It sounds like you think that every gun owner is a nutter!!
Ok, according to the theory of both of you, if I seek something cos I like it I should be kept away from it?!

You two sound like the envious losers who slag people who own fast cars just because they can't afford it..

Talking of which, here's another comparison: say that I like fast cars, which have a serious potential of infringing the law because of their speed, and that we could well do without, since you can have a normal car for your commuting. Shall we forbid fast cars just cos they serve no purpose? Or shall we be free to own something that yes, potentially it can be used to infringe the law and even kill someone, but still it's our own personal free choice to spend our own money?

yeah, I agree about the risk of irresponsible gun owners, but how many are they? Again, the law should be in the numbers.. there are roughly some 50k gun owners in the UK, how many gun related crimes committed by these law abiding citizens you recorded so far? One every 10 years or more.

(again take Switzerland: 400k firearms registered and 1 accident since the end of WW2)

How many people get killed (directly or indirectly) by poor driving, bad parenting, alcohol abuse, Anti-Social Behaviour every year? Hundreds.

Someone hasn't done their maths properly me thinks.

AK-47s have never been legal in my state in Australia. For the last 15 years they have been illegal throughout the whole of Australia.

Yesterday the police did a raid in my home town on a crystal meths Lab and found one. Hmmm! Have the gun laws worked? No, the criminals still can get them.


From my perspective, the police are very good at getting guns off irresponsible gun owners where I live. Getting them off people who step outside the law is something completely different.

Oh by the way they also found an air rifle with a telescopic sight which they showed on TV with the '47.

If criminals use air rifles, should they ban them too? If you ask the anti gun loby they say yes!

I know mate, that's what people here don't seem or want to get. Organised crime is out there and well armed too.

What I find particularly surprising is the condescending tone of "aaah come on, it would never happen here!". Apparently history hasn't taught much to these folks..

Ok.. So my opinion less 'informed' because I don't handle guns regularly?
My opinion is informed, you're patronising me and also assuming I'm stupid simply because I disagree with you. Like I said before, bigoted.

Why can't you stick to what we're talking about? LHC ? What? Stop throwing out all these decoys.

If you relax the laws on gun ownership, at some point in the future someone who shouldn't have a gun will get one legally, not a criminal, a regular person who appears normal, then has a bad day. As far as I can recall, Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria were all carried out by people with access to legally held firearms and all, interestingly, in rural areas. Away from the big cities with the gangs and guns, these people were all seen as normal law abiding citizens.

You say on one hand that the police/government are incompetent, yet these same people would be, and are responsible for licencing guns, what makes you think that they will get it right. You already showed you have no faith in them. The only way is to make it very, very hard to legally own a gun.

You're pretty good at name calling and character asassination, but when it comes down to why you think the law is wrong you've got nothing to say.

So come on, what would be your ideal criteria for gun ownership, for regular people? (let me guess... a criteria that includes you?)