water cannon

[winny]

Brilliant. So your way of dealing with robbers and rioters would be to murder them all?

And you want to be able to own a gun?

And by the way I have 'spoiled' my voting card on 3 of the last 4 general elections. I went to the polling station and wrote none of the above.

So you're wrong again. Another massive assumption.

[MD_Titus]

Just one more really.

Commendable post bewolf.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Brilliant. So your way of dealing with robbers and rioters would be to murder them all?

Uh?! When did I say that?

And you want to be able to own a gun?

I already are, ta!

And by the way I have 'spoiled' my voting card on 3 of the last 4 general elections. I went to the polling station and wrote none of the above.

yes, of course

So you're wrong again. Another massive assumption.

it was based on what you said: "I don't vote".

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Uh?! When did I say that?

You said about the rioters "What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss." Why would we miss them? Where did they go? The implication was shoot them.
You also said about robbers "If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris." Implying that if you had a gun (the subject about which we are talking) the outcome would be different. So unless they are attacking you in your house, you'd need to have that firearm in your possesion, in public. Which has nothing to do with your 'more explicit regulations' one of which was safe storage.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yes, of course

So now you're calling me a liar?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it was based on what you said: "I don't vote".

I didn't vote for anyone.
You assumed it was out of lazyness, which is lazy thinking.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

I'll tell you then, I haven't.



Growing concern for what? And in this thread it is you sitting there rolling out stereotype after stereotype, and calling me xenophobic.

yes, it's a stereotype until it hits you.

A scapegoat for what? I'm talking gun control in the UK

a scapegoat for your "character murdering", you're just preaching without any basis to support you, cos you don't even exercise your own basic rights.

Ok, I don't vote because the majority of MP's seem to value profits over quality of life. UK govenrment suck up to big buisness.

..who's talking stereotypes now? if you met your local MP you'd tell him, in a mature conversation "I'm sorry but your government sucks up big business"?

I exercise my right to not think that they are worth my vote. It's nothing to do with lazyness. Why should I vote for someone who I don't feel deserves my hard earned vote?

no, you exercise your right not to think, which is the easier way out, delegating others for important choices, well done.

And who are you to tell me what to do with my vote? It's my vote.

voting it's not also a right, it's also a duty, I'm sure you know this. I'm telling you off for the duty part of it that you don't respect, as another member of the same society.

You call me bigoted?

yep, well mainly you're doing it all by yourself, I just like stressing on it.

It's to do with the need to reload and the rate of fire. It's not about leathality (or all guns would be banned) it's about being able to shoot quickly. According to the law.

Ah, that's what it is! Reload and rate of fire! Obviously you also know that a .22 semiauto is virtually recoilless and can be easily be used to bumpfire? Before you google it, bumpfire is when you hold the gun in a way that a semiauto can shoot a burst. With a .22 you can also shoulder aim and bumpfire. Now that's safe!

Look, I don't want a gun to defend myself.

that's good, I'm not trying to sell you one.

Is that your main reason for wanting a change in he law? So you can defend yourself? Against what? I thought you were a collector? Now it's about self defense? So you want to be able to carry your gun around on the street? I thoght you wanted responsible gun ownership? Properly stored? Or are you talking about defending your property?

I'm mainly a collector, the self defence is meant in your household, not around the city, I'm not Dirty Harry.

News flash, I did defend myself.

you were lucky, and you know it.

Criminals carrying guns isn't anything to do with the handgun ban, that only affects law abiding people. Criminals by definition are not law abiding. They dont need a licence.

yeah, that's my point. Only I'm on the right side, the one of the law abiding citizen deprived of the option of defending themselves, instead of waiting for a police car..

All you're advocating is the use of lethal force for petty crimes. It's the Police's job to police. What happens when someone not as responsible as you gets a gun legally? Because it will happen.

No, it's call crime prevention by deterrent. We have nuclear warheads, but it's not like we dropped them in Afghanistan or Iraq, is it? They're there, gathering dust, with a big a$$ message on them "don't mess around with me, pal".

In your world what would have happened is I pull out my gun, someone gets shot. For a robbery, the death penalty, I then get arrested for manslaughter.
A gun would have made the situation worse.

no, in my world criminals won't hang around looking for someone to rob, cos they might find themselves in front of the wrong end of a Glock. It's like the "beware dog" sign: you're not sure it's there, but don't feel like trying your luck..
Also, in our current society, a homicide done in self defence is not a crime, I thought you knew this..

You already said that rioters should be shot. So the penalty for rioting and looting is death? How did the US handle the LA riots? They didn't machine gun the crowds as far as I can remember.

What?! When did I say that?!

Defend myself against who? I have only seen one gun outside of a Military setting in this country in my entire life. The fact remains that in the UK last year 40 people were murdered using firearms. That is a very very small proportion of the population. It's not exactly the wild west here. I've said before that if things carry on the way they are then at some point in the future I may feel the need to arm myself to protect my family. But not now.
I'm much more likley to be run over than shot.

well you had a case yourself when you were attacked at gunpoint, so you should know. But as you said, this is a mild country with a lot of well mannered people, I don't see how owning a firearm would turn you into something abominable, it's not kryptonite..

There were licenced gun owners in Cumbra at the time of the shooting, not one of them did anything. There are lots of licenced gun owners in Denmark, didn't help them either, or at any other mass shooting. In fact I'd go so ar as to say that in all the mass shootings around the world since WW2 a civillian has never shot dead the shooter. Again, It's the Police's job to police.

that is quite a broad statement, and anyway try and say that to the families of the victims, I'm sure they'll be understanding.

The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

a link, give me a link.

And as for your pub comment, next time you're in Manchester let me know.

Yeah, so you can give me a lesson uh? As I told you before, my favourite pub is The Bank, I'm there once every two months, I'll let you know the precise dates, come and see me, you'll probably recognise me, I'll be the one with three other gentlemen, all police constables (friends, not custodians), you'll be the one with the halo of ignorance and bigotry. Uh and make sure you bring your voting card too, so I can use it as a coaster.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

You said about the rioters "What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss." Why would we miss them? Where did they go? The implication was shoot them.

What?! It's your assumption! IF they get arrested and put in the slammer, I won't miss them.

You also said about robbers "If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris." Implying that if you had a gun (the subject about which we are talking) the outcome would be different.

..erm, Chuck Norris the man who kicks all a$$es, the internet joke about him being the ultimate a$$ kicker? The idea that anybody could have a gun is a deterrent, not shooting people in the face. You really have a distorted view of gun ownership.

So unless they are attacking you in your house, you'd need to have that firearm in your possesion, in public. Which has nothing to do with your 'more explicit regulations' one of which was safe storage.

You're nitpicking. It's not about whether I have a gun with me or not, but the potential, which would keep criminals far from me and my household. Don't think of me for a minute (I know you're obsessed), try and think of a lonely woman, who's physically weaker than a man on average, how's she supposed to defend herself in case of an attack? By talking herself out of it?

So now you're calling me a liar?

You said it, I called you other stuff.. besides what's this "so you're calling me this or that" bull? What are we, in primary school?

I didn't vote for anyone.
You assumed it was out of lazyness, which is lazy thinking.

if you don't go to vote you're lazy, if you go and deliver a blank vote then you're not. You are telling me that you haven't missed one election since you've been eligible to vote and you always delivered blanks?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

What?! It's your assumption! IF they get arrested and put in the slammer, I won't miss them.

And how is locking rioters up relevant to a discussion on gun control?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..erm, Chuck Norris the man who kicks all a$$es, the internet joke about him being the ultimate a$$ kicker? The idea that anybody could have a gun is a deterrent, not shooting people in the face. You really have a distorted view of gun ownership.

No you used it as an example not me. If you were attacked by 6 robbers on the street what would happen?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You're nitpicking. It's not about whether I have a gun with me or not, but the potential, which would keep criminals far from me and my household. Don't think of me for a minute (I know you're obsessed), try and think of a lonely woman, who's physically weaker than a man on average, how's she supposed to defend herself in case of an attack? By talking herself out of it?

What? Obsessed, I thought I was standing my ground in an argument? So we're arming single ladies now? Do they fit your own set of criteria as a responsible gun owners? How do the robbers know you've got a gun? How can something unknown be a deterrant. The crime figures in the USA don't support the deterrant argument. There are still roberies and buglaries.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You said it, I called you other stuff.. besides what's this "so you're calling me this or that" bull? What are we, in primary school?

Yeah, but I'm not lying. And your coment was ambiguous, I was clearing it up.
Are you?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

if you don't go to vote you're lazy, if you go and deliver a blank vote then you're not. You are telling me that you haven't missed one election since you've been eligible to vote and you always delivered blanks?

Nope voted first time, and second, it's the last 3 times I spoiled. Not that it has anything to do with you.

So, who are we arming and where can they have a gun in their possesion according to your rules? Which you contradict when it suits you.

[BadAim]

I just have to ask the question. Beowolf, Whinny and anyone else who may want to answer, why should you not be allowed to be armed? I know the answer, I just wonder if you know.

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by winny

The crime figures in the USA don't support the deterrant argument. There are still roberies and buglaries.

FYI the laws aren't uniform throughout the USA. Tell us what the rate of robberies is in jurisdictions where the State law allows citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

[winny]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

FYI the laws aren't uniform throughout the USA. Tell us what the rate of robberies is in jurisdictions where the State law allows citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

I know. I also know that in those particular states robberies in occupied homes are practically zero. But, USA has the 3rd highest number of fatal Shootings in the world - so you have 2 sides of the same problem. I was generalising.

There's no perfect solution.

EDIT: I do have the figures, by state, for roberies and assaults involving firearms, but I'm lost when it comes to the laws. Name a state and I'll tell you the figure.