water cannon

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

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.

woah.

this isn't even being sarcastic is it?

just... woah.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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!

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...

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

woah.

this isn't even being sarcastic is it?

just... woah.

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

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...

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..

[seaeye]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by seaeye

Well, you've opened my eyes.

I wish I did, or I cared..

I like how you pick apart everyones posts.

nope, only the ones I disagree with, it's called "arguing"

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

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)..

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.

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..

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

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

[winny]

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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?