water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

The whole video game argument is a smoke screen and totally irrelevant.

No, it's a parallel comparison, it's to understand where/how/when you guys draw the line. It's also because many of the "no firearms" advocates never handled one, and because of videogames/movies etc they think that gun owners sleep with their pistols under their pillow or walk around with a Garand on a shoulder strap. It's an utterly ignorant attitude that is comparable to witch hunting done in the middle ages: you don't understand something so you make it look evil and dispose of it.

Violence is everywhere in entertainment, Film, TV, Music and video games. It has nothing to do with Firearm ownership.

couldn't agree more, although it's an equation that has been created by the media that you mentioned.

Again Sternjaeger is using the worlds wrongs as a reason to have more relaxed gun laws. Last time I checked the Governments main role is to govern, to make laws. To 'chose' for you. If you don't like it, tough. Lobby.

That's very dangerous thinking. What happens the day the Government decides on something that you're against and that might potentially influence your life? Will you say "tough" to yourself? Do you really think that the firearms law that we have in place in the UK now are adequate in their incomplete shape and protecting you against firearms?

Stick to the point, ie. Why you personally want this. The rest is scare mongering and self justification.

I personally would like a re-insertion of handguns and semiautomatic full bore rifles, even if just kept in shooting clubs and not allowed in a household, this because I have interest and passion for the mechanics, history and use of firearms. I enjoy target shooting, reloading, collecting, studying and discussing about firearms, I am ready to be psychologically tested to see whether I'm suitable for the use/detention of firearms (wouldn't be the first time) and last but not least I would love to have everybody approach to firearms with a different attitude, far from the evil portrayal they receive, but with an attitude of respect, understanding and common sense, which can teach us all that firearms are not just about killing, they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.

[Sternjaeger II]

uh and actually, let me turn the question around: how do you think reinstating all pistols and semiautos would change things, since citizens who are deemed as eligible to own a firearm can already own one or more?

Do you know what are the European standards for the carrying and use of handguns and similar, and the sanctions you risk if caught not respecting these regulations?

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

... firearms are not just about killing, they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.

Firearms are only about killing and injuring* as that is their function and raison 'etre. Discipline is just about how you use (or don't use) them.




*except for target pistols, flare guns etc

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Firearms are only about killing and injuring* as that is their function and raison 'etre. Discipline is just about how you use (or don't use) them.

*except for target pistols, flare guns etc

yeah, you kinda contradicted yourself there.. they're even an Olympic discipline, which is vaguely inspired to their original purpose, but then so is the use of bows, isn't it?

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

+1 brando.

Also, someone who passes a psych test today could utterly lose it tomorrow. Muzzle loaders and small calibre rifles are either low rate of fire or relatively lower lethality than a large calibre automatic rifle.

As for hunting in this country, bar deer you're going to atomise your target with anything much above a .22. We kinda lack big game.

yes, you can lose it, but that's why there should be a more common gun club mentality and attitude, where you're kinda kindly forced to be in a social group when using your firearm.

Uh and a semiauto .22 is very, very accurate and lethal up to 150 yards, with subsonic ammunition even up to 250 and still very very lethal. Considering the very close distance at which the gun massacres happened here, you can appreciate that the calibre of your firearm becomes of secondary importance, but then, you would know this if you had some experience on firearms.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, you kinda contradicted yourself there.. they're even an Olympic discipline, which is vaguely inspired to their original purpose, but then so is the use of bows, isn't it?

No contradiction I'm afraid. The exceptions that prove the rule, perhaps.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

No, it's a parallel comparison, it's to understand where/how/when you guys draw the line. It's also because many of the "no firearms" advocates never handled one, and because of videogames/movies etc they think that gun owners sleep with their pistols under their pillow or walk around with a Garand on a shoulder strap. It's an utterly ignorant attitude that is comparable to witch hunting done in the middle ages: you don't understand something so you make it look evil and dispose of it.

Here we go again, evil..? A gun cannot be evil, or good. It's a gun. It's designed to kill. How exactly do you deduce where I 'draw the line' from the output of entertainment companies? Like I said it is irrelevant. Killing somebody for real is always wrong, it might be done for a good reason but it's still wrong.

What don't I understand? (You're being patronising... again btw) I don't have to understand anything, it's a matter of choice, regardless of what you think I think.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

That's very dangerous thinking. What happens the day the Government decides on something that you're against and that might potentially influence your life? Will you say "tough" to yourself? Do you really think that the firearms law that we have in place in the UK now are adequate in their incomplete shape and protecting you against firearms?

It happens all the time, mainly financially, but also in healthcare, education, tax etc etc etc. I don't agree with every piece of legislation passed, and yes, I do just say tough if it's something that affects me badly. I can vote at the end of the day, it's a flawed system but it's better than nothing. The current firearms laws suit me fine. I have no interest at all in owning a gun.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I personally would like a re-insertion of handguns and semiautomatic full bore rifles, even if just kept in shooting clubs and not allowed in a household, this because I have interest and passion for the mechanics, history and use of firearms. I enjoy target shooting, reloading, collecting, studying and discussing about firearms, I am ready to be psychologically tested to see whether I'm suitable for the use/detention of firearms (wouldn't be the first time) and last but not least I would love to have everybody approach to firearms with a different attitude, far from the evil portrayal they receive, but with an attitude of respect, understanding and common sense, which can teach us all that firearms are not just about killing, they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.

At the end of the day you're obviously 'into' guns. Sadly, for you, the vast majority of people in the UK don't care enough about them to warrant a change in the law. I don't see any great public debate on the subject, even after the Cumbria shootings.
As for your 'they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.'
No they are not, they are about firing lethal projectiles at whatever you point them at.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Here we go again, evil..? A gun cannot be evil, or good. It's a gun. It's designed to kill. How exactly do you deduce where I 'draw the line' from the output of entertainment companies? Like I said it is irrelevant. Killing somebody for real is always wrong, it might be done for a good reason but it's still wrong.

whereas killing someone in a videogame when you're 12 is ok, right? I'm afraid that sometimes we make the mistake to think that all families are normal, with healthy values and sound principles. Unfortunately it's not the case, and all the youth senseless violence that we have now is also fruit of this de-sensibilisation to it. Remember that kid that killed his ex girlfriend last year with a stone? Comparing how hard it is to kill someone in real life as opposed to a videogame or a movie with his friend, who thought he was joking?

What don't I understand? (You're being patronising... again btw) I don't have to understand anything, it's a matter of choice, regardless of what you think I think.

again, different opinions here, difference is that I say them, you keep them for yourself probably.

It happens all the time, mainly financially, but also in healthcare, education, tax etc etc etc. I don't agree with every piece of legislation passed, and yes, I do just say tough if it's something that affects me badly. I can vote at the end of the day, it's a flawed system but it's better than nothing. The current firearms laws suit me fine. I have no interest at all in owning a gun.

and again, that's your case, but you can appreciate that there are other people that might have a different opinion and want to voice it. It's not like we want to bring war to your country or anything, that's the kinda impression I get when I read your comments sometimes.

At the end of the day you're obviously 'into' guns. Sadly, for you, the vast majority of people in the UK don't care enough about them to warrant a change in the law. I don't see any great public debate on the subject, even after the Cumbria shootings.
As for your 'they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.'
No they are not, they are about firing lethal projectiles at whatever you point them at.

We already talked about this Winnie, I'm ok cos I can still use the firearms I want when I want to, and again mine was a mere consideration of the ridiculous state of the law here in terms of gun ownership, that's all. I respect your lack of interest on the subject, but what I don't tolerate is generalisation, like your last sentence, which is obviously driven by ignorance on the subject (which again it kinda surprises me, since you admitted yourself that you have books on firearms).

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

whereas killing someone in a videogame when you're 12 is ok, right? I'm afraid that sometimes we make the mistake to think that all families are normal, with healthy values and sound principles. Unfortunately it's not the case, and all the youth senseless violence that we have now is also fruit of this de-sensibilisation to it. Remember that kid that killed his ex girlfriend last year with a stone? Comparing how hard it is to kill someone in real life as opposed to a videogame or a movie with his friend, who thought he was joking?

Awful, but nothing to do with gun laws. (And I am still shocked when I hear someone obviously under age playing Call of Duty online, as a parent I wouldn't allow my kids to play an 18 rated game) I agree about violence in entertainment desensitising people to it.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

We already talked about this Winnie, I'm ok cos I can still use the firearms I want when I want to, and again mine was a mere consideration of the ridiculous state of the law here in terms of gun ownership, that's all. I respect your lack of interest on the subject, but what I don't tolerate is generalisation, like your last sentence, which is obviously driven by ignorance on the subject (which again it kinda surprises me, since you admitted yourself that you have books on firearms).

Ignorance of what? And can you at least extend me the common courtesy of spelling my name right..? I'm ignorant...? ok. You're the one telling me that my opinion is 'obviously driven by ignorance.' No it's not. A gun is an inannimate object designed to fire projectiles at whatever you point it at. Not a Hunter, or a collecter or a criminal or soldier. It's a machine for shooting that does not care what it is shot at or why.

If you want to explain why you find the current laws ridiculous then maybe I'd understand more where you're coming from, but your argument isn't about guns, it's about violence in society and government and human rights. As you say, you're ok because you can still use the firearms you want to when you want to, so, what's the problem?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Awful, but nothing to do with gun laws. (And I am still shocked when I hear someone obviously under age playing Call of Duty online, as a parent I wouldn't allow my kids to play an 18 rated game) I agree about violence in entertainment desensitising people to it.

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.

Ignorance of what? And can you at least extend me the common courtesy of spelling my name right..? I'm ignorant...? ok. You're the one telling me that my opinion is 'obviously driven by ignorance.' No it's not. A gun is an inannimate object designed to fire projectiles at whatever you point it at. Not a Hunter, or a collecter or a criminal or soldier. It's a machine for shooting that does not care what it is shot at or why.

Sorry about the misspelling, when I say ignorant I mean ignorance on gun culture, because, believe it or not, there is a massive culture behind it.

I don't care much for archery, but I'd never advocate for the banning of bows and arrows, although they can kill and injure too, and very well.

As you said, it's a machine, so I personally see nothing wrong in the use of it for recreational/collecting/educational purposes.

We love going to airshows, celebrating the courage and bravery of pilots, but what about all the brave soldiers that fought on the ground? Why can't a shooting event be an occasion to appreciate, get to know and learn more about firearms (which can be appreciated just as much as warbirds?)

If you want to explain why you find the current laws ridiculous then maybe I'd understand more where you're coming from, but your argument isn't about guns, it's about violence in society and government and human rights. As you say, you're ok because you can still use the firearms you want to when you want to, so, what's the problem?

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



This little bastard is lethal up to 300 yds, and accurate up to 140. Considering that most shooting massacres happen at a distance between 1 and 50 metres, we're still talking about an incredibly lethal thing, and in semiauto.

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.

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

so what is the point of prohibiting firearms if not to control the population better?

[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.