Quote:
Originally Posted by MD_Titus
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.
|
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".
Quote:
|
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...
|
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?!