water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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).

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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?

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



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?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.