water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

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..

[ATAG_Doc]

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.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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..

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.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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..

Or they can distinguish between reality and fiction.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

But that's fine if it reduces suffering, right?

More like euthanasia, right?

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by brando

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.

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..

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.

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..

Originally Posted by Hood

Or they can distinguish between reality and fiction.

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

[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.

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

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".

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?!

[winny]

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.