[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

you know what's ironic? If you put all these energies in getting informed about our rights and exercise your voting one you'd surely do yourself and your community a bigger service. But considering how lazy you are, it's easier like this, defending opinions that have been taken for you by your nanny state. I have no intention of rummaging through your posts any longer, sorry.

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it's not a race on who has the better country, and it's Italian (since you're so pedantic about names' spelling).
It's not just me who "sits and lists" what's wrong buddy, have a look around: people that are informed and care about their country (more than you), are expressing growing concern.

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well I think it was more a case of character suicide, when you admitted you don't vote. But hey, feel free to feed your denial and use me as a scapegoat.

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

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

And of course I'd say anything to defend my hobby (or my rights), I'm not a sheep.

That much is clear

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

as laws are now licenses can still be issued to wrong people. You still haven't explained me how a fullbore semiauto is worse than a 22rimfire semiauto, or why a muzzle loading revolver is less lethal than a pistol.

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Of course, there are less than 50k guns for 60 millions of people! I don't need a gun to defend myself from a gun waving murderer, but potentially for anybody who would try and commit a violent assault to me, my family or my property. How can you be happy to live in a society where you can't even provide for your family protection? Is it just a case of "let's hope it's not gonna happen to me", then if it happens you'll still say "tough"?

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You were at gunpoint yourself, which means that criminals can still get a pistol, so why shouldn't you? It's obvious that police forces can't limit the presence of illegal firearms in this country, so thank you very much, but I'd rather defend myself with my own means.
In that immediate stance you risked your life without being able to defend yourself. You hit the guy and he fled (which probably means his gun was fake), but what if you missed or if he decided he wanted more from you than just your wallet? It's insane to think you went through that and still think you shouldn't be able to ultimately defend yourself.

News flash, I did defend myself.
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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

As for your statistic..

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)

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