water cannon

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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!

It's unbelievable and somehow historically offensive that nowadays there's still people that highlight the bad done by the British Empire without considering all the good that was done...

That knife cuts both ways.

Bringing up stuff that happened a long long time ago is irrelevant. Where do we start? The Dutch? The Spanish? The Portuguese? The Itallians, The Russians, The Mongels? The Egyptians?

[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..

[nearmiss]

Do you really think the horrors of the past can be attributed to any one country. The facts are... all of us civilized ones had grandfathers that were bloody savages for thousands of years.

Only with affluent society do people embrace more civility towards each other. You want to see that civility disappear, just let people that are the "civil and just" ones suffer empty bellies.

We aren't what we seem to be. It would take great strength of convictions not to revert to barbarism when people are starving. I see what the so-called 3rd world is guilty of, and I'd say most of it reverts back to lack and want, with political avarice thrown in for good measure.

If you don't have a gun, you will quickly realize how much effective your high sounding talk and fair debate will do against an armed enemy. That enemy will pop you in the brain pan with his AK47, and never think twice about you.

Expediency, draws a short cord.

[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

It's unbelievable and somehow historically offensive that nowadays there's still people that highlight the bad done by the British Empire without considering all the good that was done...

That knife cuts both ways.

erm no, there are NO examples of colonialism that brought any good to other civilisation, apart for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

joking aside, if you really believe that empires colonised for the spreading of good intentions and to export democracy, then you're as gullible as the supporters of the war to Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's merely commercial interest, and the few good things that might have been introduced unfortunately are no match for the bad that has been done.

One of my best friends work for a UN organisation in Malawi, and she tells me the most horrible stories, not only about the British dominion times, but about the psychological damage that they have done to the generations to come, showing in a reverence for the white man ("buana") as a superior creature, a semi-god that is never to be questioned or contradicted, but only obeyed to. She struggled to train her local team of collaborators cos they wouldn't just ever contradict her or give any input. Now if that isn't doing damage to a country, I don't know what it is..

Bringing up stuff that happened a long long time ago is irrelevant. Where do we start? The Dutch? The Spanish? The Portuguese? The Itallians, The Russians, The Mongels? The Egyptians?

again, wasn't me who brought this up man.

[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 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.

[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.