still beating a dead horse here me thinks..

truth is that the advocates of gun ban live a contradictory life, if they're comfortable in playing their war games but are against firearms..

There are 90 firearms for every 100 citizens here which makes it the most heavily armed society in the entire world. Bless the soul whose job it is to collect and document all of them.

No, you're not getting the point, for whatever reason. British society is based on guns remaining in the hands of Her Majesty's Armed Forces and, to a limited extent, HM Police. The majority of UK citizens are quite happy for this to be the case.

I don't have any problem discerning between my views on (not) distributing guns to the masses and playing historical war-games on a computer. There's no comparison.

Or they can distinguish between reality and fiction.

I'd say that my friend is one reason we own personal weapons in the USA. Figure it out or not your choice.

guns are still in the hands of citizen who want to own them, not any kind of guns, only certain ones who for some ridiculous political standard are deemed as "less lethal" than others, this is what I think is the ridiculous point.

Why I can own a semiauto rimfire gun or a bolt action full bore rifle, or a shotgun, but not a semiauto full bore or a pistol? Hang on, you can actually own a pistol, but it needs to be a muzzle loader.. You really don't get it, politicians listen to the opinion of ignorants who think that guns mean violence and crime, who probably never handled one and want to judge upon it regardless. Truth is that the ridiculous gun ban has made no difference to crime rate, which didn't involve firearms before anyway, apart for the two or three crazies that went on a killing spree (and the last one in Cumbria, who did it as well, again undisturbed for hours because the police officers that were following him as he was shooting were unarmed..).

The ridiculous gun ban in the UK is another political manoeuvre to make a certain part of the public opinion happy at a certain time and above all to limit the right to bear firearms, which is normal in any other democracy..

What's this silly idea of distributing guns to the masses? It's not like you could buy guns at ASDA before, so I can hardly think of masses of people running to the local gun shops and stack up on firearms and ammo (esp. considering the prices!). A firearm can be use for hunting, sport and collecting, I don't see what's wrong or dangerous in that. Needless to say you need a careful assessment of the person to determine whether he/she is eligible to own and use a functioning firearm, and THIS should be the responsibility of the Government and police forces.

As for discerning reality from fiction, I'm afraid it's you that don't get the point: how can you vouch for a war game, turning the traumatic experience of millions of people into a recreational activity, being fascinated with war machines that made the difference between the life and death of millions, and then say "oh no, owning a rifle is bad!"? This double standard of "a Spitfire is better than an SMLE" hasn't still been clarified to me..

so if there was a game about rape, pedophilia and murder you would play with it cos you can discern fiction from reality?

If 51% of the uk population are happy with the legislation then that's how it goes. If you want to start making the vote determined by a detailed understanding of the issues and mechanics involved then I guess a lot of people will lose the right to vote.

There are games that feature murder. However they are games, make believe, cowboys and indians. Game dev's have left well alone of the sales suicide that would be a rape sim for painfully obvious reasons that really shouldn't need explaining. Why war games are part of an argument for relaxing gun ownership laws is totally beyond me. You've got that bone and you're just not letting go of it...

Hunden, I was being sarcastic. The suggestion made by your statement is that having a gun means you can euthanise at will?

Ah! You see? That's the point, NOBODY ever asked you whether you were pro or against certain types of firearms, the Government of the time decided for you and that's it. Truth is that if they asked you as the thing happened, it's obvious that the public opinion wouldn't have been pro firearms..

There were protests of course, but considering that the handgun ban affected only 0.1% of the population, it's obvious that nobody really cared, even if the Conservatives received the (in)famous Cullen enquiry, which was against the banning of firearms on such a wide extent, saying that for the sake of security they could keep guns assigned and stored to gun clubs more than single individuals.

What they don't tell you though is that the Dunblane Massacre could have been avoided, had the police done its job properly, since Hamilton was an offender and had quite a record, there were many reports of him being potentially dangerous, but they didn't do anything about it. Yet again, the irresponsible decisions and acts of your government and your police are paid by the citizens.

Same goes for the Cumbria shooting, where they couldn't stop that maniac simply cos they didn't have any firearms to confront him with.. the core issue is that police forces in the UK are not pro-active or preventive, they're somehow anachronistic, thinking that you can solve things with a buff on the head and a patronising chat.. crime is changing, and so should the police forces: the reply to the London riots was a classic example of their utter incompetence "we weren't ready for this".. really? A city that had terrorist attacks? A multi-cultural melting pot of millions of people? A city that will host the Olympics next year?!
And mind you, when I talk about incompetence, it's not the poor PCs that I'm talking about, those poor people are just doing their job with the means they're given, I'm talking about all the heads and their stuck-up-their-own-ar$e police procedures and care for human rights and what not.. if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear when a police office carries a sidearm.
Once again, it's your government choosing for you, cos they don't like you nor trust you. Most of the folks at the government come from specific social layers and circles anyway, and have little or no understanding or care for "little Britain".

The thing started because people aren't happy about guns, but you give them Call of Duty et similar and they'll shoot the crap out of it, becoming "experts" in which gun is better and what not.. still, this very same people won't feel comfortable in handling a real firearm.. I'm sure you're also aware of games like Grand Theft Auto or Destruction Derby (which in some countries had the pedestrians changed with zombies), as much as you are aware that we're not all mentally stable. Talking about a hit and run that happened in your area can be thought provoking and shocking, mocking the same thing on a screen is ok, cos it's not real. Don't you really see the double standard?!

The whole video game argument is a smoke screen and totally irrelevant.

Violence is everywhere in entertainment, Film, TV, Music and video games. It has nothing to do with Firearm ownership.

Again Sternjaeger is using the worlds wrongs as a reason to have more relaxed gun laws. Last time I checked the Governments main role is to govern, to make laws. To 'chose' for you. If you don't like it, tough. Lobby.

Stick to the point, ie. Why you personally want this. The rest is scare mongering and self justification.

No, it's a parallel comparison, it's to understand where/how/when you guys draw the line. It's also because many of the "no firearms" advocates never handled one, and because of videogames/movies etc they think that gun owners sleep with their pistols under their pillow or walk around with a Garand on a shoulder strap. It's an utterly ignorant attitude that is comparable to witch hunting done in the middle ages: you don't understand something so you make it look evil and dispose of it.

couldn't agree more, although it's an equation that has been created by the media that you mentioned.

That's very dangerous thinking. What happens the day the Government decides on something that you're against and that might potentially influence your life? Will you say "tough" to yourself? Do you really think that the firearms law that we have in place in the UK now are adequate in their incomplete shape and protecting you against firearms?

I personally would like a re-insertion of handguns and semiautomatic full bore rifles, even if just kept in shooting clubs and not allowed in a household, this because I have interest and passion for the mechanics, history and use of firearms. I enjoy target shooting, reloading, collecting, studying and discussing about firearms, I am ready to be psychologically tested to see whether I'm suitable for the use/detention of firearms (wouldn't be the first time) and last but not least I would love to have everybody approach to firearms with a different attitude, far from the evil portrayal they receive, but with an attitude of respect, understanding and common sense, which can teach us all that firearms are not just about killing, they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.

uh and actually, let me turn the question around: how do you think reinstating all pistols and semiautos would change things, since citizens who are deemed as eligible to own a firearm can already own one or more?

Do you know what are the European standards for the carrying and use of handguns and similar, and the sanctions you risk if caught not respecting these regulations?

..."Same goes for the Cumbria shooting, where they couldn't stop that maniac simply cos they didn't have any firearms to confront him with.. the core issue is that police forces in the UK are not pro-active or preventive, they're somehow anachronistic, thinking that you can solve things with a buff on the head and a patronising chat.. crime is changing, and so should the police forces: the reply to the London riots was a classic example of their utter incompetence "we weren't ready for this".. really? A city that had terrorist attacks? A multi-cultural melting pot of millions of people? A city that will host the Olympics next year?!
And mind you, when I talk about incompetence, it's not the poor PCs that I'm talking about, those poor people are just doing their job with the means they're given, I'm talking about all the heads and their stuck-up-their-own-ar$e police procedures and care for human rights and what not.. if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear when a police office carries a sidearm.
Once again, it's your government choosing for you, cos they don't like you nor trust you. Most of the folks at the government come from specific social layers and circles anyway, and have little or no understanding or care for "little Britain"....

All this rant and you want to relax the present laws on gun ownership? You're just sliding towards the "enshrined" laws of gun-ownership that allow psychopaths in the US to rack up really high scores when they flip out and go off shooting their class-mates and teachers, relatives or total strangers.

In response to an earlier post where you suggest that we enjoy shooting people on computers and compare Spitfires to the SMLE, as well as inferring that some of us do this and "hate firearms", I thought I'd mention my experience.
I've handled and fired all of the infantry weapons of the British Army up to and including the L1A1 SLR and the GPMG, and sidearms such as the the Webley MkVI and the Browning 9mm. All of them interesting and great fun to fire in a military context. In that one of the most important aspects of live-firing is discipline, both self-discipline and that applied by warrant-officers and N.C.O's to ensure that gunfire is both directed and effective in hitting the target. Outside this context firearms take on a sinister role in civilian life. Gun clubs had a good reputation for many years, especially during the years when mass call-ups were a likely response to international wars. Since the end of the cold war, and indeed before that time, the idea of conscripting gun enthusiasts to defend our shores had fallen in face of the modern army structure - small, eminently professional, and high-tech.

However, a series of events changed the public's attitude to gun ownership and gave rise to the current regulations. Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria have all showed up the dangers and shortcomings of the previous structure and the present structure in the case of Cumbria. No doubt it's galling to be restricted to muzzle-loading handguns, rim-fire .22 rifles and shotguns - but what are the alternatives? Michael Ryan showed the shocked citizens of Hungerford just how lethal a Chinese Kalashnikov, an M1 carbine, and a Beretta 9mm pistol could be in the hands of a crazed and indiscriminate shooter; while Thomas Hamilton demonstrated the effectiveness of alternating full-metal-jacket and hollow-point rounds in the four handguns he used to kill sixteen children, one teacher, and finally, himself at Dunblane Primary School. It should also be noted that a similar number of victims were wounded by gunfire in both these cases. It's fairly certain that not so much loss of life would have been caused had these maniacs only been armed with muzzle loaders and rimfire .22 rifles, although Derrick Bird showed that shotguns and a .22 rifle could indeed amass a double-figure score when combined with the use of a vehicle on back-country roads.

What's important to note is that none of the gun massacres in either America or Great Britain have been prevented by gun-carrying members of the public or armed police. And in most cases the shooters have killed themselves before they can be captured.

+1 brando.

Also, someone who passes a psych test today could utterly lose it tomorrow. Muzzle loaders and small calibre rifles are either low rate of fire or relatively lower lethality than a large calibre automatic rifle.

As for hunting in this country, bar deer you're going to atomise your target with anything much above a .22. We kinda lack big game.

Firearms are only about killing and injuring* as that is their function and raison 'etre. Discipline is just about how you use (or don't use) them.




*except for target pistols, flare guns etc

Here we go again, evil..? A gun cannot be evil, or good. It's a gun. It's designed to kill. How exactly do you deduce where I 'draw the line' from the output of entertainment companies? Like I said it is irrelevant. Killing somebody for real is always wrong, it might be done for a good reason but it's still wrong.

What don't I understand? (You're being patronising... again btw) I don't have to understand anything, it's a matter of choice, regardless of what you think I think.

It happens all the time, mainly financially, but also in healthcare, education, tax etc etc etc. I don't agree with every piece of legislation passed, and yes, I do just say tough if it's something that affects me badly. I can vote at the end of the day, it's a flawed system but it's better than nothing. The current firearms laws suit me fine. I have no interest at all in owning a gun.


At the end of the day you're obviously 'into' guns. Sadly, for you, the vast majority of people in the UK don't care enough about them to warrant a change in the law. I don't see any great public debate on the subject, even after the Cumbria shootings.
As for your 'they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.'
No they are not, they are about firing lethal projectiles at whatever you point them at.

It seems clear that those individuals who want to fire military weapons should join the TA or the Army, while those who wish to fire weapons without being shot back at should submit to stringent controls on where and how guns are stored and fired. No usable weapons to be stored at home (except for farmers' shotguns) and detailed usage lists to be kept strictly up to date at gun clubs. Ammunition expenditure to be more firmly regulated, and random body searches used to back up these regulations.
In reality though, with the presence in our country of committed jihadists and serious criminals, storage of lethal weapons and ammo at gun clubs would be hard to enforce and maintain. Many small armouries were closed at the time of the Troubles when the IRA were abroad on the British mainland - and no doubt the authorities are more than happy if they don't get re-opened. Proper regulation would require a significant input from a national Police force that is absolutely strapped for cash and already involved in dealing with criminality. They don't need to be diverted to service a handful of gun-owners.
What they do need is more weight to the laws governing the possession of un-registered firearms. I'd be happy to see a mandatory life-sentence become the penalty for carrying any handgun, with the penalties for trafficking or converting firearms and/or supplying ammo being of similar or even more stringent severity. People can rabbit on about human rights and personal freedom, even the statistics of death in former wars and the rise of "first-person shooters", but try explaining that BS to the relatives and friends of those dead from gunfire.

I have never said I want to relax gun laws, I just think that citizens shouldn't pay for the incapacity of their institutions. I would like more efficient gun laws, which would allow us to own firearms and keep on living our normal lives.

How comes you keep on mentioning the US and never look into an example that is really close to ours? In Switzerland, every man is given an assault rifle to keep in his house, and they even allow the owning of fully automatic firearms, still, you don't hear of a gun massacre in Switzerland everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Why sinister? If anything you just lived one of the many sides of firearms, the use in military situation, but as mentioned above, there are many other contexts, few of them sinister me thinks. I find it more sinister to see a British collector spending loads of money for a gun that has been de-activated but is desirable cos there's SS skulls and bones on it..

I have taken several Brit friends to shooting ranges in Italy with little or no experience in firearms, and they ALL thoroughly enjoyed it, leaving with the same question "why we make so much fuss out of it?!".

From my experience in the Army and having visited and worked with foreign armed forces, I can tell you that there's way more of a strict attitude about firearms in gun clubs than in many military ranges.

I went clay pigeon shooting a year ago in a shooting range in the Midlands, the guys asked me about my experience etc.. but they would still stay within a step from me and any other shooter before/after me, because their responsibility was to ensure first of all a safe experience, especially to people that might not be that literate on the subject and risks of gun handling.

gun culture doesn't just belong to military circles, you should well know this. The best Luftwaffe aces were fine hunters and brought their shooting skills to use with incredible results.

Indeed, they also proved that despite the clamping down on guns ownership, you can still go on a killing spree and act undisturbed for hours.

A different take on the subject for starters. Re-considering the issuing of license procedures, recurrent psychological tests, strict regulations (you commit a penal crime, no matter if gun related or not, you can kiss your license goodbye) and gun clubs routines and culture (which can easily help assess "trouble" individuals). In this way we'd all be happier. Again, check out the Swiss regulations.

Exactly. A killer on a killing spree could do the same with a knife or other means, and a semiauto .22 or a full bore rifle are still damn lethal. The problem here is not in the number of victims (cos that's the only concern of the government), but the fact that a society where there's an effectively controlled issue of firearms can be still safe, or even safer.
well, that's speculation I'm afraid: a gun massacre won't happen if the person is stopped in time by police forces or other citizens, and I'm sure that these happen often, but don't make it to big news.

yeah, you kinda contradicted yourself there.. they're even an Olympic discipline, which is vaguely inspired to their original purpose, but then so is the use of bows, isn't it?


yes, you can lose it, but that's why there should be a more common gun club mentality and attitude, where you're kinda kindly forced to be in a social group when using your firearm.

Uh and a semiauto .22 is very, very accurate and lethal up to 150 yards, with subsonic ammunition even up to 250 and still very very lethal. Considering the very close distance at which the gun massacres happened here, you can appreciate that the calibre of your firearm becomes of secondary importance, but then, you would know this if you had some experience on firearms.

whereas killing someone in a videogame when you're 12 is ok, right? I'm afraid that sometimes we make the mistake to think that all families are normal, with healthy values and sound principles. Unfortunately it's not the case, and all the youth senseless violence that we have now is also fruit of this de-sensibilisation to it. Remember that kid that killed his ex girlfriend last year with a stone? Comparing how hard it is to kill someone in real life as opposed to a videogame or a movie with his friend, who thought he was joking?

again, different opinions here, difference is that I say them, you keep them for yourself probably.

and again, that's your case, but you can appreciate that there are other people that might have a different opinion and want to voice it. It's not like we want to bring war to your country or anything, that's the kinda impression I get when I read your comments sometimes.

We already talked about this Winnie, I'm ok cos I can still use the firearms I want when I want to, and again mine was a mere consideration of the ridiculous state of the law here in terms of gun ownership, that's all. I respect your lack of interest on the subject, but what I don't tolerate is generalisation, like your last sentence, which is obviously driven by ignorance on the subject (which again it kinda surprises me, since you admitted yourself that you have books on firearms).

Gun laws

The only gun laws you need is the right to bear arms.

The crooks leave you alone, because they don't know if you are carrying.

The crooks don't invade your home, because they don't know what you have to protect yourself.

Look at all the genocide, throughout the world. The one's with the guns are the troublemakers and murders, yet the people they are hurting don't have guns. You want to stop the murder and mayhem, arm the people that currently have no way to protect themselves.

Yes you would have civil wars, but the peaceseeking side would have the ability to defend themselves. As it is they are slaughtered mercilessly.

Look at Somalia and Kenya now, over a 1 million people (with no guns) have had to flee Somalia or die there. All these people have become a problem for the rest of the world. I don't feel uncharitable when I say this. I'm just saying, if those people had been armed the outcomes would be different. I think it would have been horrible, but I don't think there would have been as many killed and suffering.

It would be difficult to give them guns now, because all the able bodied men have already been killed for the most part. The refuges are the young, the weak, the old and infirm. These people have to turn to the world for compassion, and they have strong argument for compassion and aid.

When a despotic government or factions want to start trouble, just make sure the folks they despise or otherwise plan to destroy have guns to defend themselves. Outcomes would be different.

+1 to Nearmiss, and your example can be scaled to nations and their races for nuclear armaments: yes, it's horrible to think that on this very British soil there are 226 nuclear warheads, half of which would be enough to obliterate human kind for good, but it's "peace through an equal threat" or "superior firepower" the only winning formula with human kind unfortunately.

It's the presumption to think we live in a world where a war couldn't happen again that leaves me speechless. The United Kingdom waged wars for centuries, yet Britons now think it can't happen again..

You better believe it. There are people that hate, and have their own reasons for it. The radicals, the religious zealots, we've had these people since forever and they are inevitably spawned in every generation. They do get empowered, which we see from factions that perform and promote genocide.

I can assure you, there are people that have their own reasons for hatred. They create reasons to hate, and they have no basis, except their own borderline insanity.

The citizens of every country need to bear arms, it is a deterrent of enormous proportions to keep despots from taking over. The despots and crooks want to take your stuff, but they won't go to the trouble to take it when you are willing to defend it.

A side note -- you can count on it. There is a Hitler clone alive today, ready to spew the poison and hatred to destroy millions. There are many Hitlers in the world today, that would love to do their dirt. There are people so full of hatred it is beyond the sensibilities of reasonable men and women. Civilized society has to to keep those evil people in check, and immasculated. It is critical to keep them from ever achieving power, or everyone will pay consequences, possibly of enormous proportions.

No contradiction I'm afraid. The exceptions that prove the rule, perhaps.

This is laughable. In the First World it isn't going to happen, and in the Third World having a gun doesn't help because the despots have more, bigger guns or they're supported by First World countries.

You're also advocating intervention into other countries' domestic affairs by arming their citizens and formenting civil war? That gives the USA a bad name that it doesn't deserve.

I can't be bothered to reply about the crooks bit - look up your own stats.

Awful, but nothing to do with gun laws. (And I am still shocked when I hear someone obviously under age playing Call of Duty online, as a parent I wouldn't allow my kids to play an 18 rated game) I agree about violence in entertainment desensitising people to it.



Ignorance of what? And can you at least extend me the common courtesy of spelling my name right..? I'm ignorant...? ok. You're the one telling me that my opinion is 'obviously driven by ignorance.' No it's not. A gun is an inannimate object designed to fire projectiles at whatever you point it at. Not a Hunter, or a collecter or a criminal or soldier. It's a machine for shooting that does not care what it is shot at or why.

If you want to explain why you find the current laws ridiculous then maybe I'd understand more where you're coming from, but your argument isn't about guns, it's about violence in society and government and human rights. As you say, you're ok because you can still use the firearms you want to when you want to, so, what's the problem?

Big guns can be offset by will and determination not to be a victim. Maybe not immediately, but who knows the threshold for the despots resolve. If you don't fight, you defnitely lose.

Maybe a hand gun won't get the whole job done, but it can help when it comes to dealing out the misery.

You obviously have little idea how the empire was built, because it wasn't simply 'Guns and Violence'. The British Empire was a result of trade with other nations. Violence occured, but then it was hardly any more so than what was happening throughout the world at the time. The Empire actually brought peace to an otherwise contantly warring India, and developed and educated the lands that came under the British flag. If they didn't, no amount of guns and violence would have kept the system going for so long. It's really not how you think it was..

Read this for starters..

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Brita...5848858&sr=8-1

hahahahaha "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World" seriously?!?! Another trumpet blowing self proclaimed historian that wrote a novel (which doesn't even come with references!!)..
Quoting one of the reviews:

1. The British Empire invented drug-running, in order to correct its balance of payments with China. Britain was importing vast quantities of Chinese tea, and the Chinese weren't choosing any British produce in return. So we conspired to get the Chinese hooked on opium, even though Chinese law stated the opium trade was illegal. The plan worked and we even used the Royal Navy to maintain it. That is plain British evil.

2. The British Empire invented the concentration camp, in the Boer War, where we interned innocent Afrikaans women and children. Blood on our hands again.

3. The British Empire invented the mass slave trade, or the Black Holocaust as it is otherwise known. Tens of millions died on British ships and in British plantations. We took it to diabolical levels, that far overshadowed the practices of the Romans, Ottomans, Arabs and a number of African states that were also involved. More blood on our hands.

4. The British Empire caused famines in Ireland and India, that killed millions of civilians, simply because we didn't take precautions for non-British races, precautions we did take in Britain.

5. The British Empire invented modern monopoly practices and asset-stripping: The Industrial Revolution took place in Britain shortly after Clive looted the Bengal Treasury (that became a record injection of revenue into the British economy) and established a monopoly for British produce in India. With the Portuguese, Dutch, French and all others shut out of the massive Indian market and the stupendous cash windfall there is no surprise Britain surged ahead. Imagine if just 1 European country had a monopoly on Indian trade today, its economy would boom.

6. The British Empire lied to and cheated the Jews and the Arabs during WW1, promising both groups what they wanted in the Middle East. After WW2, the British ran out of the Middle East, leaving us with the mess of the unending Arab-Israeli conflict and modern terrorism on the streets of London.

Have you actually ever been to the countries that you allegedly brought civilisation to? India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Rhodesia, Malawi, not to mention Latin America or the Pacific Islands/Australia...

It's unbelievable and somehow historically offensive that nowadays there's still people that praises the good done by the British Empire without considering all the bad that was done!

woah.

this isn't even being sarcastic is it?

just... woah.
i'm sorry, but what is the point of this post in relation to the topic? show me a nation, any nation, and i will show you the path it took to it's present state.

paved with the bones of those that fell in it's name or in defiance of it. i doubt that anyone that praises benefits, real or perceived, of those colonial days without also recognising the costs as well. if they do they are as myopic and misguided as someone who would compare real gun ownership with owning a computer game that has guns in it.

oh wait...

that's the whole point though, violence is perpetrated by individuals by different means: violent people will still be violent, with or without a firearm.

Sorry about the misspelling, when I say ignorant I mean ignorance on gun culture, because, believe it or not, there is a massive culture behind it.

I don't care much for archery, but I'd never advocate for the banning of bows and arrows, although they can kill and injure too, and very well.

As you said, it's a machine, so I personally see nothing wrong in the use of it for recreational/collecting/educational purposes.

We love going to airshows, celebrating the courage and bravery of pilots, but what about all the brave soldiers that fought on the ground? Why can't a shooting event be an occasion to appreciate, get to know and learn more about firearms (which can be appreciated just as much as warbirds?)

Ok, let me explain: the current limitations imposed with the firearms regulations have no relevance in terms of safety against gun crime (as the Cumbria massacre demonstrated), simply because the range of firearms available is still very lethal and effective. Nowadays you can own one of these and be perfectly legal

http://www.precisionweapons.com/cart...5_M4_Upper.jpg

This little bastard is lethal up to 300 yds, and accurate up to 140. Considering that most shooting massacres happen at a distance between 1 and 50 metres, we're still talking about an incredibly lethal thing, and in semiauto.

So it's not a matter of what firearms you have available to the public, but on which basis people are authorised to own firearms.

The statistics are quite clear: a society without firearms is not safer than one with firearms, think again of the example of Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

so what is the point of prohibiting firearms if not to control the population better?

It's unbelievable and somehow historically offensive that nowadays there's still people that highlight the bad done by the British Empire without considering all the good that was done...

That knife cuts both ways.

Bringing up stuff that happened a long long time ago is irrelevant. Where do we start? The Dutch? The Spanish? The Portuguese? The Itallians, The Russians, The Mongels? The Egyptians?

yeah, there is a whole world outside the UK that runs by different rules buddy, welcome to the harsh reality of life..

I dunno, I was pointed to that ridiculous book, it wasn't my initiative.. as for the benefits of the colonial days and their perception, check again the title and content of that piece of junk..

There's not much to say about your last sentence, me thinks..

Do you really think the horrors of the past can be attributed to any one country. The facts are... all of us civilized ones had grandfathers that were bloody savages for thousands of years.

Only with affluent society do people embrace more civility towards each other. You want to see that civility disappear, just let people that are the "civil and just" ones suffer empty bellies.

We aren't what we seem to be. It would take great strength of convictions not to revert to barbarism when people are starving. I see what the so-called 3rd world is guilty of, and I'd say most of it reverts back to lack and want, with political avarice thrown in for good measure.

If you don't have a gun, you will quickly realize how much effective your high sounding talk and fair debate will do against an armed enemy. That enemy will pop you in the brain pan with his AK47, and never think twice about you.

Expediency, draws a short cord.

Why are you linking Guns to Violence? What has violence got to do with gun ownership. Violence is is the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes.
You don't have to get violent with a gun to make people do what you tell them to do, you just point it.

Oohh, nice gun :)

I don't think that the current regulations have anything to do with gun crime, it's a public saftey issue. As you know there are loads of illegal guns in the UK and plenty of armed robberies and shootings. More guns is just that, more guns. If there are more there is more risk.

So is that your point? The criteria for ownership? What's wrong with the current rules?

It may not be safer in countries without firearms but there's definitley less chance of getting shot..

Sorry, but the UK is nothing like Switzerland - The UK is much more like the USA especially the under 30's.

erm no, there are NO examples of colonialism that brought any good to other civilisation, apart for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

joking aside, if you really believe that empires colonised for the spreading of good intentions and to export democracy, then you're as gullible as the supporters of the war to Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's merely commercial interest, and the few good things that might have been introduced unfortunately are no match for the bad that has been done.

One of my best friends work for a UN organisation in Malawi, and she tells me the most horrible stories, not only about the British dominion times, but about the psychological damage that they have done to the generations to come, showing in a reverence for the white man ("buana") as a superior creature, a semi-god that is never to be questioned or contradicted, but only obeyed to. She struggled to train her local team of collaborators cos they wouldn't just ever contradict her or give any input. Now if that isn't doing damage to a country, I don't know what it is..

again, wasn't me who brought this up man.

Well, you've opened my eyes.

I like how you pick apart everyones posts.

I like how you chose to post the most negative review of that book to make a cheap point.

I like your fictional story about the white man in Malawi. I have a friend who works for the UN in Malawi, your friend's boss, who completely discredits her. See, I can write a load of balls to.

I have recently been introduced to forum terminology. I'm not sure, but maybe you can clear it up.

Are you a Troll?

it's not me doing it, it's the public opinion. I'm perfectly aware that guns don't mean violence, but many are convinced otherwise.
Violence can be related to gun crimes like homicide, but as you said in theory all you need to do is pointing a gun (or something that looks like a gun) to someone to obtain what you need.
well, if you kill or threaten someone with a gun, you are committing a crime which of course is a threat to public safety. There aren't that many armed robberies and shootings compared to other countries, and the few that happen are unfortunately localised in specific areas.
I don't care about how many guns people have, I care about an effective system that can assess one's eligibility to own a firearm and an effective monitoring of the person.

Yes. My point is that not only the current rules do not work as they should, and they haven't changed an awful lot since the '90s.

Not only there should be a more effective selection and control, but there should also be a campaign that bring some sense into the matter.
I lived in Italy for 28 years and was at gun point twice only because of the job I did, but I have many friends who never even saw a gun apart for when they served in the Army or the sidearm of a police officer. It's all relative to the areas/times/people.
U'd be surprised how the two countries and populations are quite similar actually.. the scenario you depict is more the case of some big cities, like Manchester, London and Liverpool, but the rest of the UK is quite dorment and doesn't really have much of that gang atmosphere that I think you refer to.

I wish I did, or I cared.. :rolleyes:

nope, only the ones I disagree with, it's called "arguing"
and I like how you want to teach me about the history of the British Empire by means of a novel. It's like trying to teach someone about the early years of the RAF in WW2 by suggesting Piece of Cake(which is a great novel)..

You obviously haven't travelled much to Africa (or at all).

there can't be no good examples of civilisation in front of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

or this

http://newbritishempire.site11.com/b...massacres.html

or this

http://newbritishempire.site11.com/b...genocides.html

all the facts mentioned on the links have actually happened, and you're telling me that this was the price to pay to bring the "good effect of trades" into other countries? If so I really have nothing else to say to you..

no, trolls don't waste time validating their points, they post links to novels to talk about history..

I find it funny that this is basically an argument about the criteria for gun ownership. Not violence, or Empire or Dead policemen.

You have already pointed out that the Police make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes, at somepoint, somebody who really shouldn't own a gun legally will get one, legally. Should they send a Doctor round every week to every gun owner to assess their mental health? If you relax the rules then there is more chance of the wrong person getting a gun legally.

If you want to shoot targets what's wrong with an air rifle? Why do you need a semi automatic? One word.. Power.

If it was up to me then anyone who wanted an Assault Rifle should automatically not be allowed to have one, simply for wanting one. There is no need, other than to get your rocks off, ker-pow ker-pow. Look mom, I'm a killing machine.

I'm sorry man, but with all due respect I'm coming to the conclusion that it's pointless to talk about this topic with someone that obviously never handled firearms on a regular/interest base.

The preference over semiauto to bolt action can be driven by different reasons: if, as a gun collector, I want to own and operate a working M1 Garand, I should be able to, simply cos it's not less lethal than a K98 or an SMLE. As for target shooting, an air rifle doesn't have the ballistic properties of a full bore one. There are competitions all over the world for target shooting at long distance, often with vintage or ex military rifles, even to distances up to 1000 metres, how are you supposed to do that?

As for the delusional attitude you're joking about, I'm afraid it belongs more to people playing with videogames. People that do "the real deal" (guns, warbirds, tanks etc..) are infinitely more serious and responsible than people that play videogames (or let their children play with them).

I don't think we will ever agree on this, and it's a shame, you really don't know what a fantastic discipline you're missing on.

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?)

ok, so can you tell me off the top of your head what are the procedures and rules in act at the moment to obtain a gun license, what kind of guns you can get and what kind of licenses are out there? I'm afraid that the bigot here is you, who can't think of a suitable solution just cos you have no interest or are afraid of something, so you wipe it off.

decoys? I'm just giving parallel examples that can help you see things without the "bad firearms!" blindfold..

there we go, another example of not actually reading my posts.. I have NEVER said RELAX gun laws, just make them more adequate and you won't need to prohibit only certain guns..

As for the 3 massacres (since WW2) that you mentioned, I think they're a drop in an ocean of murder and violence that we're surrounded by, the firearms became the scapegoat, but the responsibility was in the institutions that deemed that people suitable for gun detention.

I'm sorry, but what an utterly insane solution!!! So if an institution fails to deliver on a service, you remove it instead of improving the institution itself?!

You know when I mentioned the fact that if you're ignorant on the topic you can't understand? The gun club social reality I was talking about is a perfect example of how a simple thing like attending such clubs can be a solution to spot loonies (like it happens in Switzerland), but you can't understand this obviously unless you ever frequented one.

yeah man and you're pretty touchy yourself, and I already told you what's wrong with the law, if you don't even bother reading my posts then why wasting my and your time?

oh, for the love of... ok, again..

1) Whoever wants to get a license should have a clean penal record (him and everybody in his close family and/or living in the same household).
2) You need a series of psychological tests to assess whether you are at risk of developing socio-path behaviour. People with childhood traumatic experiences or any other condition shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
3) There should be different levels of gun holding licenses (according to the firearm possessed), each coming with mandatory training session and responsibility of safe storage
4) You will need to frequent your local gun club and integrate in social activities, i.e. events, competitions, open days etc..
5) the police can come and check at anytime that you have everything stored safely
6) you will do recurrent tests or short visits to local doctors who can check on your psychological status.

I could go on for a while, or simply make a photocopy of the gun regulations in Switzerland. Switzerland is highly unlikely to be invaded anytime soon, still, the male citizens feel invested and understand the responsibility of being part of the civil guard, making them proud and committed citizens. A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone.

" A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone."

Leaving aside the IRA. UDA. PIRA. UVF. RIRA. RHD. and various other para-military groups who did an awful lot of harm to the peaceful citizens of their country?

Or maybe consider the cross-border flow of drugs for guns across the Rio Grande?

But it's really no use talking to a person whose gun fetish outweighs his compassion....

What?! did I say a terrorist para-military discipline? Brando, you're welcome like anybody else in this conversation, but please stop trolling.

If I'm a gun fetishist then what are you? A delusional bigot that still thinks there can be a world without firearms, after centuries of his own kingdom having poured others' blood? How naive..

I'm happy with the current situation, ie: Total ban on Handguns and Semi Automatics.


I have never once in this discussion said that guns are bad or good, it's you who keeps making this about good and bad, not me.

More adequate? You mean lift the ban on Handguns and Semi's? That's relaxing in my opinion.

The only people responsible were the shooters, they all had gun licences, so they passed the criteria at the time. The reason you can't own a semi automatic is Michael Ryan. The reason you can't own a handgun is Thomas Hamilton. Not because the system failed, they failed, as gun owners. You want a nanny state whilst not wanting nanny state, if they are banned there is no grey area.


The obvious soultion here is that you move to Switzerland.



Er, isn't that pretty much the current UK situation? We have Shotgun licences, and seperate firearms licences, you have to have your medical records checked, you have to have safe storage, you have to be a member of a gun club or designate the land where the guns will be used.

As for ongoing mental health checks, very, very hard to seperate the 'loonies'
as you call them from the responsible gun owners (if responsible gun owner isn't an oxy-moron)

Fact is all you have to do is show 'good reason' and as far as I'm concerned, looking a them, or firing them at weekends isn't a good enough reason to own a handgun or a semi, thankfully this also appears to be the stance taken inthe UK towards that type of gun ownership.

You want to collect or shoot a handgun / Semi / Machine gun in the UK?
You can't, why? Because people with legally held weapons went on a killing spree. We banned them because of legal gun owners, not criminals with guns. Like I said if you don't like it, move to Switzerland.

that is not even correct, you can still own muzzle loading guns and semiauto rimfire. Get your facts straight.

this is a petty point to be honest..

if there was no adequate adapting of the laws yes, but this is not what my point was.

No, if you read the law, the people that appoint such licenses can be as responsible as the perpetrators of the crime. The ultimate and biggest responsibility is with the perps of course, but the institutions are responsible (because of their neglect despite the repeated reports) too.

This is probably the biggest nanny state on the planet, your Government doesn't trust you at all.

I wish I could, but I have to be here because of the specialised work that your lot can't do, and to pay for the welfare bunch that can't do anything else but claim their rights :rolleyes:

it's similar, but not the same, again, since you're so worried about the dangers of gun ownership, try and apply to get a license and see how actually easy it is.

yeah, I suppose that your PhD in Psychology helped you giving a professional opinion on the matter.. your alleged funny punchline shows once again your ignorance on the subject. You think of a gun owner as it was a ticking bomb..

yeah, that's your opinion, but then again it's the typical approach you have here, condescending and patronising towards everything that doesn't follow the herd.

no, you can't because of a combination of factors:
1) a certain politically correct layer of society pushed for it, fed by ignorance.
2) Tories couldn't go for an unpopular choice in front of the horror, besides an unarmed country is easier to control.
3) people don't understand their rights and the importance of defending them.

this could only happen in a country like the UK, where there are moral double standards (a gun is dangerous! Binge drinking is safe!) and pretentious moral values.. but above all where people are sheep enough to be imposed things without saying anything.

A little example for you: in the office where I work the new management (which is earning salaries two to 3 times higher than the previous) has decided to remove all the rubbish bins from the offices "to promote recycling" they said, but in reality they did it to cut costs. Instead of complaining and pointing the obvious (i.e. why is the new CEO earning two and a half times the salary of this country's Prime Minister?!), they just comply and waste time walking back and forth to the kitchen area to use the bins there..

A few months back they proposed to close the bars in our offices, again "to cut costs", and in front of the menace of no booze over lunch break there have been petitions, discussions and what not..

(drunken) sheep, nothing more, nothing less.

no, they had been pushed into it by being tormented, teased and shunned by their peers, as is a constant with all who have berko

You call me petty !

So what? I don't really trust them either.



My lot? Seriously? move. Just leave.


No, I don't want one.

Ignorance of what? It boils down to what you think is 'good reason' to own a Handgun or Semi Automatic. I can't think of one.

Pot, kettle? Seriously, you're a hypocrite. We're a herd are we/ simply because we disagree, you know nothing about me, you're making assumptions.


What about the right to live in a country with tough gun laws?
Gun owners right more important than non gun owners are they?

Now you're just talking rubbish, find me one single quote from anyone in a position of power in the UK that says binge drinking is safe. I know for a fact that guns are dangerous. So what you've just said is the exact opposite of what is clearly the truth, you'll say anything to justify your position.
What pretentious moral values are you talking about?

Yet another irrelevant, meandering paragraph.

Fact - Semi Automatics were banned in this country because a gun owner, a gun club member, walked through a rural town and shot people. Handguns were banned because a gun owner went into a school and killed children.

Your only relevant point seems to be that a having a hobby is a good enough reason to own a lethal weapon. I don't think it is. Ok?

You know, the more I read of this thread the happier I am that the founders of my country had the forsight to boot HM Troops and Government back across the Atlantic.

I am also quite amused that that gun haters in this thread think that those of us that enjoy our firearms hobby are paranoid. Quite a bit of transferance there I'd say.

Can I just say that I don't hate guns, and I'm not scared of them. I own lots of books about guns. I just don't think that a hobby is a good enough reason to own a Handgun or Semi Automatic. That's all.

I'm having a discussion about the UK system, I'm being accused of ignorance when the last thing I am is ignorant. I made an informed choice about my stance on the subject and all I get back is that I'm a sheep, or ignorant or any of the other personal things that have been said to me.

Well stated ElAurens....

It is amusing to me that the U.S. took the exact opposite approach to gun ownership/possession two hundred plus years ago....

The very folks that founded the U.S. government, chose to empower the people and not themselves....

The very rights mentioned in the posts made in this thread....were earned, with an armed populace...be it an army, militia or a mob. The future retention of those rights? Will be retained with the same.... It seems to be a bit late for the Brits and others... I have a right to a ballot and a bullet. Either way, I get to vote... One way is by permission...the other by right.

Foresight? Independence was fought because of self interest as they didn't want to pay tax (damn'd right I say) and most European countries decided to help them out.

Bash the UK if you want, but I think anyone in the USA that wants to do that should be prepared for the USA to be bashed in return. That gets away from the purpose of this thread, which is for Stern to be self righteous and everyone else to take shots at him whether rightly or wrongly.

As for gun haters, I'm not sure that anyone here hates guns. They hate what they do, but who wouldn't. There is also a fundamental difference in philosophies between the UK and other countries, including the UK, and that is all.

You really think individual US citizens are empowered?

How?

As I read it the right to bear arms is that so you can help defend the nation, not yourself.

.
First I didn't call you petty, the point was petty.
Second, if you think that's a petty difference, you don't get the whole point of my argument (that though I had figured out long ago..).

yes, but they're the ones with the stick. Are you gonna wave your voting card when they decide for you once again?

I really can't, but people like you make this place less pleasant than what it actually is. Mine was a dickish answer to a dickish statement.

agreed, but just for the sake of science, to see how easy it is to get one.

I can't think of a good reason to snort cocaine or smoke weed, still, other people enjoy doing it.

instead of pondering the opinion of a foreigner, who might see things from a different perspective, all you can do is taking it personally like I'm talking to you, relax.


I haven't asked for less tough laws, just for laws that make sense. With stricter (or shall I say, more effective) gun laws and semiauto and pistols we all win.

sure, but what are they doing to stop or reduce it? Nothing.. let me think why, maybe cos too many people like it, or maybe cos the Government gets a lot of revenue off the selling of alcohol and tobacco..
Everything has a dangerous potential, even your kitchen knives, your car.. shall we forbid everything that is potentially dangerous?


wrong again.
no, you're looking at the shallow end me thinks. It's beyond that, but if you're happy to think otherwise..

WONG! This is my major :) Let me set you straight. That is exactly its intent - to defend yourself. Since you play IL-2 Cliffs of Dover (of I assume you do) it should be pretty easy for you to answer - who in history during this period of time this game is set - was a tyrant that was elected to office by a free society?

The constitution / bill of rights is a charter if negative liberties aimed squarely at the government with maximum freedom to the individual - written in such a way as to say what the government will NOT do for you. NOT what it will do for you.

The second amendment is not only to defend the nation from foreign aggression. But domestic and the government from becoming tyrannical.

The founders specifically meant that sometimes when the people don't get their way at the ballot box, there has to be another method to make change.

Thus the second amendment remedy was born.

This is from the federalist papers.

James Madison wrote "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

And you call me a delusional bigot? You're priceless.

I'm still talking facts here man, get your facts right then tell me about yours..

Are we arguing about the way we're arguing here? You know exactly what I meant when I said handgun, you're just deflecting the argument again.

No, I just don't vote, they're all the same. I just get on with my life. I can't think of anything that I've wanted to do in my entire life that the govenrment stopped me from doing. They are so far removed from rel life that it's poinltess bothering with them.

People like me? WTF? Who do you think you are?

Jeez, we're onto drugs now are we? Why? What are you going on about?
G U N S. Remember?

Wher have I resorted to calling you ignorant, dickish, a sheep, questioned your intelligence? I haven't. I've stuck to my side of the argument, you meanwhile go from one random analogy to another. I'm not taking this personally AT ALL. You're the one getting personal. You're the one slagging off my country of birth, have I mentioned Italy? Not once.

Except me? I don't want handguns to be legal in the UK. Or Semi Automatics.



They put the price up.

No, forbiding potentially dangerous things would be stupid, I'm talking about lethal wepons, expilcitly - firearms - they are not the same thing - Another smokescreen.


Stop telling me how I'm thinking, I am a grown up, I can make my own mind up about things. I'll say it again - I don't think a hobby is a good enough reason to lobby for lifting the current bans. Time may well change this opinion, If in the future there becomes a real need for gun ownership, you know, when the oil runs out, or food, and you really would need to protect yourself then, absolutley, get me a gun. But not now, I like having an unarmed (in the main) police force, they aren't as cocky. You arm the population and the poilce arm themselves too and so do more of the criminals. Less than 40 people were killed by guns in the UK last year, that's pretty good for a nation of drunken benifit claimers. I want it to be the hardest thing you can apply for a licence for. Truth is the Brits like a good old fashioned drunken punch up more than a pussies with guns shootout. (I don't mean people with guns are pussies, I mean a pussy with a gun, someone you know you'd beat to a pulp if he wasn't armed)

Some citizens here are empowered. I am one of them.
How?
I take responsibility. When confronted with any type of bad folks who demonstrate a desire to steal, destroy or threaten my family, neighbors, myself or our property. I have the ability to take the appropriate action. I don't have to wait hours for the police to apologize and take a report. The really neat responsible part of this? It's legal here.

Now for that "nation, not yourself" part....when, I read that...I giggled.
At you.
Try this on for size?
If you can't defend yourself first, how can you defend your nation?

Sternjaeger II I wouldn't put to much more energy into this, there isn't much more you can say to convince people who have their minds made up. I'm all for the next guy not having a gun. Just don't try to take mine because you know us paranoid type.

You take responsibility? I presume you have a cape to twirl whilst you dish out punishment in your vigilante alter ego?

I presume that you know that the "right to bear arms" has different interpretations, and that it was formulated in the late 18th century? By people who had to support the idea of armed insurrection as that is what they had just done?

I don't have to defend my nation as my government does that on my behalf, and I trust them to do so. Owning a gun wouldn't help me defuse an IED in Afghanistan, or stop a terrorist attack. How do you defend your nation by owning a gun? Owning a gun doesn't empower you to do anything at all; that's what the rule of law does.

It really doesn't bother me that the USA allows the right to bear arms. It's your country and your politicians and if you vote for them and they let you have what you want then that's fine. If you disagree with your government by all means form a militia and march on Washington. It'll make great TV whilst it lasts.

However, don't criticise another country's peoples and laws just because you do not agree with them. If you're not a citizen then it's really none of your business. That goes for the whole guns are great/bad argument.

Giggle away.

That goes both ways doesn't it.

Roger Wilco on the giggling....;)

This was amazing. Great read. You blog any where? It's a great study because its polar opposites. Regardless n which side you're on it is a very interesting position how throughout the world we have these very different views of things.

The internet has made the meetings of these ideas so easy where just a hundred years ago the world was a very different place.

Ok, two men with guns. One who cares for his community, having a good time with friends and family without violence, the other who doesn't give a toss about anyone but himself and doesn't give a dam who has to suffer for his actions.
Who is going to pull the trigger first?

The fastest draw? I guess we'll know whose the fastest draw in town is wont we.

I'm sorry I thought you said you go both ways when I first read it.

History indicates?
The one who cares...
Why?
Caring people are more intolerant of the reckless...
Than the reckless are intolerant of the caring...
:cool:

Put your banjo down before reading then.

yeah, there's the right way to interpret it, then there's your way
http://cricketsoda.com/wp-content/up...arms-shirt.gif

aaawwwww bless, so you can vouch for the fact that we (in the UK) live in a society that is safe cos the government and police do a good job at protecting us? I take it you're also implying that all the Swiss citizens are crazy? As for the rule of laws, it might come as news to you, but criminals normally are tagged as such because they break the law.. so you play by the rules, they don't, they might get you killed and then, maybe arrested. But in the end who won? In Italy we say "it's better to have a bad trial than a nice funeral".

it's different, the American presidentialism offers more possibilities than our constitutional monarchy (another thing that leaves me well puzzled..I respect it of course, but regardless of what you say it's a waste of money, period).
If an American disagrees at least he has the option to get on the road with his militia (which hasn't really happened so far), if you disagree cos your government is shafting you, you do what "keep calm and carry on"?

this is valid for your as well, you criticise the American system and then ask others to respect the UK one..
I wish I could giggle about this, but men that can't even take the ultimate responsibility of defending their own country and/or neighbourhood are men anymore? You probably never had to deal with a public disorder/crime situation here, where what really comes out is how helpless and useless policing is here. Besides, if your government and police are so efficient, why do you think we have things like "neighbourhood watch" in place? Are they all crazy?

..and this is yet another example of your provocative nature.

Yes we are safe, as safe as anyone can be.

Nope haven't criticised the American system - it's their system to do with as they will, so is neither good nor bad, just different. I disagree with it, but that's not criticism. I'm not sure where the assumption comes from that I'm implying the Swiss are crazy, so I won't even touch on that further. Crazy costs of living yes.

Lots of people in the UK don't understand the monarchy either. I happen to be in favour for a number of reasons but that's a different subject.

What really gets me is that all the pro-gun crowd seem to be equating gun = ability to defend. A gun is needed because the other guy has one. In the UK the vast majority don't have guns to use, so we don't need one. I can defend myself if I have to, but that doesn't help me defend my country. What kind of skewed thinking is that.

As for my provocative nature, what a sweeping assumption to make based on my caustic response to a provocative comment. I wonder what the other examples are?

"However, don't criticise another country's peoples and laws just because you do not agree with them. If you're not a citizen then it's really none of your business. That goes for the whole guns are great/bad argument."

I live in Canada, Where yes you can own a gun. However I live in a major city for 40 years and still haven't found a "local gunshop" I'm thinking of the Amendment in the States "Right to baer arms" was in a time when you had cvil wars, Indians losing there lands, Bears and unlawful towns in some parts of the country. And really Each to his/Her own. But When you see or hear of a mass murder with M-16's, or find out Are/your Troops were killed by M-16's that were given to Afghanistan to help fight the war against Russiain the 80's

Makes me skahe my head to think the gun that killed are fallen troops was made in the USA

If everyone owned a gun would it be right? Do you know
The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers

It ranks up there with 3rd world Countries

A idea would be to stop making guns! The more there are the eazier it is to get one ( Hunters get 1 rifle ) Gun hobbist ( find another hobby) or use rentals at a gun range. Automatic guns banned. FBI, SWAT, Homeland, Army etc only anyone else min 10 years

now, I'm only saying that if you really want to, you can still have a handgun, muzzle loader yes, but even a revolver muzzle loader..

and you call yourself a responsible citizen?! You don't even bother to vote "cos they're all the same" and then you get mad if I call you a sheep? :shock:

read above, people like you, yes, who blindly vouch for their own institutions and country and don't even make an effort to make his voice count cos they're lazy.

it's a parallel: drugs serve no purpose according to a certain part of the society, but another part (who uses them) find them enjoyable. Still, some of them are tolerated.. nonsense..

there's no perfect country man, but there are countries where citizens are more engaged in what's going on, and those countries work better.
Don't take it so personally, especially cos you're not that bothered about your country, since you don't vote, you just get mad if someone talks bad about it, and behave in a racist way too, inviting foreigners to leave, instead of digging your head out of the sand and listen to what people from other cultures and backgrounds have to say.

yes, fine, you still haven't given valid reasons why.

yeah and you're happy with that..
lethal weapons? You said that a gun is not good or bad, so why forbidding something that is not good or bad? I'd monitor the gun accessibility better, not prohibit it altogether.

I'm not telling you how you think, you know how you do it and you're convinced of what you're saying, the facts on the other hand, say otherwise. I'm not here to change your mind or whatever, I honestly don't care, but if in a potential future there will be a need to gun ownership (apocalypse, change of rules, raise of crime), you'll be late, and probably dead too.

then you must live in some remote part of the UK and you don't watch TV news. Seriously? That's pure denial.

cos every man there is asked to defend his country, just like when you had the territorial Army here during the war. Maybe that's why you are against guns, you watched too many re-runs of Dad's Army..
it's off topic, but I'd be genuinely interested to know why, feel free to PM me about it.
that's a somehow romantic view, guns can be used to defend yourself when you'd be easily overcome by someone stronger or in greater numbers than you. It's a battle leveller: if everyone has the same offensive potential, everyone stays calm. It's what our governments do with nuclear weapons: they don't use 'em, but they're there, just in case..

yeah, but that was a bit over the line here.. as you know banjos are Luthier's fav instrument :mrgreen:

I live near Manchester. Pick any country and if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time then you're in trouble. TV news rarely shows good news, and if you read the Daily Mail then the whole country is going to the dogs. I don't equate bad news on the TV with living in the UK in general.

As for defending my country, if I was conscripted then I'd pick up a gun. Not because it's what I want but because it's what my country expects of me. I don't need a gun to hand to do it - that's what the armed forces are for.

The monarchy - I like it because:

1. It's a constant in times of great change. The current queen has been a very worthwhile moral compass and a great example of public service - I really believe that she sees her role as serving the people of her country and the Commonwealth.

2. The Crown Estates (ie the properties owned by the monarchy) give about £230 million to the revenue of which about £8m is returned to the Queen - good profit for the country I'd say.

3. The royal family are great ambassadors for the country, and they do it for duty not money (google Civil List to see hwo the monarchy is funded - might clear up some misconceptions commony held).

4. For me it makes the UK different from most other nations. Not better or worse, just different. Over time I think the monarchy will end up more like that of the Netherlands.

5. I just like it - no rationale logical reason.

6. They're probably ever so slightly traditional British eccentrics (i.e. bonkers but nice with it).

There are a whole host of arguments against them, normally focused on their cost to the UK economy. I always wonder if it'll ever be possible to calculate their actual worth.

And I forgot that Luthier likes the banjo. Just so long as he doesn't start saying "Squeal...."

If tight gun legislation prevents ONE person being killed by someone who had previously passed whatever tests were in place, and who legally owned their firearms... It's done it's job. End of, simple as that. It's not a failing of language that prevents you understanding this stance, which is shared by my countrymen in this thread, it's a failing of logic.

That you continue to debate this, and draw in irrelevant examples such as jealousy (!) of car owners just goes to further to illustrate the fatal flaw. Guns, in the wrong hands, kill people. The wrong hands may have been the right hands yesterday. Doing everythjng within the UK governments power to prevent that is, in the eyes of the majority of citizens of the UK, a Good Thing.
+1
Indeed.
You keep on ignoring a really huge one, so why should we?
Quite.
Cracking post. Although the image of Stern as big daddy (Kick-Ass) is bkth amusing and disturbing...
I find the depths of your delusion disturbing.

News reports make it seem every street has it's own paedo, crack dealer, terrorist cell and serial killer. "if you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed, if you do read them you're misinformed".

How did you know I was playing my banjo?

Educated guess

:grin:

You know what, I'm not even making an effort to answer your posts anymore, you came out for what you are: a person that is lazy, uninformed and cares about his country only when others (read "foreigners") question its rules, to which you can only obey like a sheep, not only cos you're uninformed, but cos you don't even use your own right to defend your opinion, the vote. You're the kind of person that is ruining this country, carry on with your obtuse and condescending behaviour, I'm sure it'll get you far..

yeeeeeah, any other commonplaces to put down? The truth is that you can get a lot more news and information nowadays than 20 years ago, it's all about knowing where to get it. I think the Daily Mail is on par with Nuts Magazine et similar, you can get all the information you need from online news independent broadcasts etc.. I can provide you with link, but maybe you're too busy reading the Sun..

yep, four days of burning and looting in the major UK cities were the perfect example of how ready our armed forces are.

this I can understand.

this I don't understand. It's like they're getting a share of a profit without doing anything, a bit mafia like ;-)

mmmmhyeah, have to say that Prince Philip offers some comedy gems every now and then ;-)

That goes without saying. You love being different.

what is it that you like exactly? To be a commoner or the idea that there are people with no special skills, but that for chance/land owning/convenient wedding are entitled to a title of nobility and are somehow "better" than the average person?

lol true :mrgreen:

Well other countries have other people that cover the same roles at the fraction of the salary, so their worth is kinda irrelevant.

The way I see it is that's just a neat, overpriced, anachronistic tradition to cling onto, but hey, it's part of your heritage, so why not? Maybe they could still do what they do cutting a bit on the unnecessary expenses, that might really show how they are "the people's royal family". But hey, again, just my opinion. I ask cos most people react really weird and tend to evade the question when I ask them what they think of the royal family.

utter tosh.

again you ignore the salient point - the majority of UK citizens are happy with the restricted ownership of guns. most, if not all, would also support even harsher sentencing for illegal ownership of guns.

this is the law of the land.

it is democratically supported.

i vote in national and local elections.

and i am far from uninformed.

sending armed troops onto the street to deal with rioters is the reserve of syria. the riots happened for very deeply ingrained issues, and quickly degenerated into simply looting... which is again a result of deeply ingrained issues. as soon as a sufficient police response was established the problem was extinguished, and with a minimal loss of life.

with less restricted gun ownership (and don't ignore that a lot of those currently on remand for their part in the riots were first offenders with no psychiatric issues which would preclude gun ownership), or a heavily armed response... it would've been a bloodbath.

when people cite the laws of other countries and wish to implement them in this country, i will defend my country and the laws i live under where i agree with them - and if i do not i will still respect the democratic process that has led to their implementation. i will not bitch and moan that the laws should be changed simply because it inconveniences me. and i will do this regardless of who i am arguing with.

Hey you play yours I will play mine and we do the dueling banjos like in the movie deliverance.

I just can't resist.....:oops:

And the one without the gun?
Gets to squeal like a piggy......;)

utter tosh?! First of all, was I talking to you? No. Second thing, you reckon that a citizen that doesn't vote or doesn't understand the importance and value of his vote is a responsible one?

oh yes, I remember when they made a referendum on the subject, and citizen were asked whether they would be for or against the prohibiting of only certain firearms instead of re-thinking the gun policies.. oh wait, it never happened, they did choose what's better for you (and them: blame the firearms, not their ineffective laws)..

But because it never was an effective change, after years another gun massacre happened, and instead of raising the obvious question "should police officers be armed in order to face such rare but possible outbursts of violence?", they watched impotent as an armed man held a part of the country hostage of terror, because the police forces couldn't stop him for 4 hours (he started shooting at around 10am, and the police was notified by 10.20), cos even when they started following him in the car, the PCs were unharmed and had no mean of stopping him..
Try and say "sorry, but shit happens" to the families of the 13 victims. It's a bloody shambles, and there's no justification for it. Times are changing, and police should adapt their methods to a society that is getting more violent (with or without firearms).

erm, no, you probably still think that Armed troops would do what the English Army did in Ireland, but that's other times..
as soon as?! 4 days?!?! The looting stopped mainly cos there was nothing left to loot, not because of the "adequate policing", let's not forget they are the one who said "we were not ready for this" (utterly insane!) and are now changing their methods and bosses.

..seriously? And you think that you'd issue a lot of gun licenses to people that live in potentially dangerous areas, who are on welfare or have a criminal record? Besides it's a matter of armed police forces in that case: nowadays people well know the threat of an armed police officer in front of them and get contained easily. See what happens in the rest of the world when riot police gets on the roads.

Uh and since you mentioned Syria, which is a corrupt regime, I could tell you "see what happened in Lybia when citizens gets weapons: they dispose of tyrants".

Considering how soft bellied and spoiled we are nowadays, if the UK became a corrupt regime you'd just keep calm and carry on..

The UK laws do not inconvenience me at all, I am just stressing on the fact that some laws are indeed ridiculous and only offer an illusion of safety, because they address the problem in a fascist way (denying their own fault and depriving you of things).

Me again :) No, what happened is they said 'we're banning handguns' the vast Majority of the UK went 'Oh, Ok..' There was no popular movement crying out that Handguns shold't be banned, you just don't get that the majority of people in the UK just don't give a sh*t about guns.

This point is about arming the Police, not arming the population. You mistrust the Police and want to arm them too?! All over the place...

Why on earth would you bring up bloody sunday, another cheap shot against the UK. I said it before, leave. I don't want you here, slagging us of whilst taking our money, double standards.

What happens is people die. Apple can afford to restock their shop. Or is money more important than life?

Bull. Utterly wrong. (And I take it the 'we' you mean you)

Your air of superiority is palpable.

even if you cared you wouldn't have obtained anything.

See what happened lately with the insane raise of university taxes, you tell me that nobody cared? It affected (and will affect) students, universities and employees.. thousands of people got on the road to protest, but in that case the police was quite swift in sending everybody home there.. don't you really see what they do to our society?!

no, arming the police AND arming citizens who are deemed as suitable by a fair and adequate institution. Disarming everybody seems the easiest solution, but in fact you deprive people of their own basic rights.

it burns uh? it's your heritage, like the bloody heritage of any other modern country.. Your beloved Cromwell killed 3500 Irish people in the Siege of Drogheda; the Croke Park Massacre, the Bogside Massacre (Bloody Sunday).. shall I carry on? Your country is not better or worse than many others.

Yeah, taking your money, your women.. anything else? :rolleyes:
Fortunately they're not all arrogant, ignorant bigots like yourself, besides how are you gonna make me leave exactly, talking me out of here?
You can't even control your own immigration flow, and people from abroad who bother studying and making a career come here and get your best jobs.. you're lazy, you don't vote, you don't understand the importance of your own rights and you bark at the people who try to instill some good sense in your sheep mentality.. as I said before, you're the worst England. Uh, and I'm not telling you this as an Italian, I'm telling you this as a worker and taxpayer, who holds the same rights and duties as you do (and I do bother to vote), regardless of where I'm coming from.

yeah, people die anyway, as for your brilliant equation, it's not money that is more important than life, but it's respect for laws and above all self-respect. What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss.

Utterly wrong, why? Elaborate.
I don't feel superior, in the end of the day we're all human beings, I think it's you who's starting to feel inferior, since you got all aggressive..

If I listen to my inner child, I can more then understand this fascination with guns. As a mature adult however, I can't.

A gun is a tool made for killing. That is it's sole purpose. The only way a gun thus makes sense is that killing is acceptable under certain conditions in any given society. Once that line of thinking is established, it is rather easy for people to justify their own reasons for using deadly force. That applies to criminals as much as to people defending themselves.

This whole debate is questionably a debate between instinct and rationals.
Instinct dictates the right for defence of home, family and one's own life without trusting others or institutions to do that job. THat is an emotion I can more then understand.

However, Rational dictates to ban killing outright (including the death penalty) and a ban on tools for killing is a logical consequence. At first glance this may look naive, as there always will be people willing to use deadly force. However, a) emotional barriers will be higher (yes, it does make a difference for people if you told them as a child that it is ok to use deadly force in some circumstances opposite to telling them that killing is wrong, period)

and b) a lack of tools for that purpose makes it quite a bit harder from a purely physical PoV.

It's a simple matter of maths. Ban on firearms=fewer firearms=fewer kills. The individual may feel more unsafe without lethal means for defense, but that person is also much less likely to be confronted with a firearm.

That said, there are some grave differences between the US and the UK; or any other european country for that matter. In the US there is a lot of space for people to spread out. In Europe there is not. And the fewer space there is for a society to spread out, the more there is a need for compromise.

bewolf, people get killed regardless of firearms, if someone wants to kill, he/she still will do it, with or without a gun.

Following your idea we shouldn't even have armies, nor embark in things like invading other countries for "peacekeeping". This kind of societal hypocrisy really annoys me.

So you want to sodomise someone at gun point. Says it all really, probably following on the family tradition.



Stern, I think you're really missing the point. So I live near Manchester, I'm not putting it down - it's just a place like a lot of others. Look at your earlier posts for the reason why I posted that.

As for online independent broadcasters - they are of course trustworthy and their information is of course accurate and untainted by editorial bias. Try and make your own opinion rather than regurgitating others, or getting sucked into conspiracy rubbish.

For the monarchy, read up on the Civil List like I suggested, then comment on salaries and the like. Regardless of how you look at it the UK has a good deal.

As for leaving the country, why would you want to? After all, you came here as do many many others. There must be some reason for that (quick, trot out stuff about lax immigration and easy benefits etc). Presumably you saw opportunities not available in your own country, but of course if you went home you'd just be a sheep talking Italian, with a corrupt prime minister and a huge national debt. A great country to be your role model.

I was offered an Italian WW2 rifle once. Never fired and only dropped once. Bargain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

Interesting read - no idea if it's accurate though.

I don't think I'll be back to this thread as I'll only get ruder. It's been fun but it's just tiresome now. ta ta

opinions must be based on facts, otherwise it's just blabber.

you could even have a better deal, but it's your choice not to see it. I'm cool with that, dont get me wrong, it's just a bit too much of an expensive tradition, esp in such dire times.

I came here for personal reasons, not professional, but there are many others that do. It's a great country and I like the overall spirit. Yes, it's not perfect, but which country is? To me it's just appalling to see a country that was capable of such great things during the two world wars that turned into a well different reality.

yeah, you think it's the first time I heard that one? Or that Italian tanks had 1 gear forward and 46 reverse, or that the Italian Army in WW2 was the only one with sunburnt armpits? That's your humour, patronising and condescending. I've heard many say it's you that won the Battle of Britain, some even still believe you won WW2 (and not the Americans), heck you even made fun of brave Polish fighters who joined your country to fight against the Nazis for years, until someone said it wasn't politically correct anymore..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

Interesting read - no idea if it's accurate though.
[/quote]
it is indeed, nonsense at its finest.

you'll be sorely missed, cheerio.

That would imply that all killing was planned and intentional. It also implies that using physical force or careful planning as a means to kill a perosn is as likely as simply having to pull a trigger as a result of the situation. That's a very narrow view on gun crime. Or any crime involving a dead person in the end, eventually.

And please spare me that army argument. We actually should disband them indeed. The countries with the largest track record of starting wars are western countries, between each other and most of the rest of the world at one point or the other. That hardly is a good defense for defense.

Besides, hardly a criminal considers himself "evil" or a "bad person". Neither do nations. All have their in their own eyes legit reason for the crimes they comit. The only "good" guy is the one who stands in the end with a smoking gun.

Just to make this clear, I do think that there are situations where one must fight, risking one's own life and for that having the means to win. But these situations do not apply to everyday life.