water cannon

[Lixma]

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Lixma

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

I have never said that gun ownership prevents crime, I just like firearms and want to be free to use them.

Let me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.

I frankly don't care what people think of firearms, men that don't like em never shot one probably, but again, it's not my problem, I know I like going to the range and use my ww2 rifles, period. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

You lot have a very distorted vision of owning firearms me thinks..

[Das Attorney]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

ILet me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.

That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Das Attorney

That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

...erm, you can buy a semiauto rimfire .22 CAR15 in the UK... it's just an obstinate political thing..

you forgot the Cumbria shooter and his 12 killed and 23 wounded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

wake up, people..

[Das Attorney]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

...erm, you can buy a semiauto rimfire .22 CAR15 in the UK... it's just an obstinate political thing..

you forgot the Cumbria shooter and his 12 killed and 23 wounded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

wake up, people..

I know about the rimfire's still being available. As you know, they are significantly less powerful than a centrefire gun, hence still being legal.

As for Cumbria, that was because of police incompetence. If they had got their act together, they could have stopped him earlier. I wasn't disputing the fact that the legislation is crap though - just pointing out why it is the way it is.

Don't get me wrong. I like target shooting, but the laws are there for good reason (normally because a minority ruin it for everyone else). Right or wrong, we just have to accept it.

[ruggbutt]

Originally Posted by Das Attorney

I know about the rimfire's still being available. As you know, they are significantly less powerful than a centrefire gun

It's all about shot placement. Lotta survivors of .44 mag who took one in the arm or leg but no survivors of those that took a .22 rimfire between the eyes.

[Das Attorney]

too true!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

There are also people who like to go fishing with firearms while dressed in womens clothing! which would be actually illegal in Australia.

At least in my state taking fish with a firearm or even carrying it on your boat, or discharging it over open water is illegal.

Some laws are just plain silly and are designed to repress our self expression on our journey to enlightenment!