water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Lixma

So they aren't much good at preventing crime.

yes they are, it just has nothing to do with criminals, since they already have firearms. What did they find on the scum that was killed by the police in London?

Arming the police and allowing the public access to firearms are separate arguments. I'll let the police decide.

I agree, and firearms are already accessible by the public, albeit in a restricted form.

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by Lixma

Will the UK's crime rate go up, down or be un-affected by gun ownership?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The crime rate won't be affected.

Originally Posted by Lixma

So they aren't much good at preventing crime.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Yes they are.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Lixma

erm,I believe you misinterpreted what I meant.. It won't affect crime because criminals already have guns.. do I seriously have to explain this bit again?

[Lixma]

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Lixma

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

I have never said that gun ownership prevents crime, I just like firearms and want to be free to use them.

Let me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.

I frankly don't care what people think of firearms, men that don't like em never shot one probably, but again, it's not my problem, I know I like going to the range and use my ww2 rifles, period. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

You lot have a very distorted vision of owning firearms me thinks..

[Das Attorney]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

ILet me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.

That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Das Attorney

That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

...erm, you can buy a semiauto rimfire .22 CAR15 in the UK... it's just an obstinate political thing..

you forgot the Cumbria shooter and his 12 killed and 23 wounded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

wake up, people..

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

There are also people who like to go fishing with firearms while dressed in womens clothing! which would be actually illegal in Australia.

At least in my state taking fish with a firearm or even carrying it on your boat, or discharging it over open water is illegal.

Some laws are just plain silly and are designed to repress our self expression on our journey to enlightenment!

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yes they are, it just has nothing to do with criminals, since they already have firearms. What did they find on the scum that was killed by the police in London?

I agree, and firearms are already accessible by the public, albeit in a restricted form.

hang on.

the criminals have guns, yes, a lot are reactivated firearms or eastern european. but it's the bullets that they find in short supply. rounds go for £50-100+ each. they tend to just shoot each other because it's difficult and expensive to get rounds for anything other than settling scores or sorting territory.

second, it appears and according to the IPCC, that the guy who got shot hadn't fired at police, and reports suggest it was still in his sock when they shot him. if he is brandishing the thing then fine - danger to life is obvious. if not the police ballsed it up. not helped by a bunch of them battering a 16 year old girl on the floor outside the station when the family turn up wanting to know what happened.

[Ploughman]

Nice thread.

Car = transport. Not a weapon.

Gun = Weapon. A weapon.

SternjagerII left his guns in Italy but wants to shoot guns = GO BACK TO ITALY.

We sorted?

Really, it's that simple. This is the UK, we don't do guns. Perhaps one day you'll be dancing on our national grave saying "I told you so" but I don't think so. If you want to own and shoot an arsenal of guns there's loads of places to do it, just not here. If you came here loving guns and are upset you don't get to go full-auto, it's this simple.

Leave.

The exits are clearly marked.

Go.