|
|
|
|
#1
08-12-2011, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Well when you get banned for vulgarity you sure won't know why will you? 
|
|
#2
08-12-2011, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
08-12-2011, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
08-12-2011, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Your blind faith and narrow sight on our society might fail you before than what you think unfortunately..
|
|
#5
08-12-2011, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Again with the insults. If you, or anyone, has any evidence that the introduction of free access to firearms will benefit Great Britain I am all ears. If anyone can convince me that the introduction of firearms will not result in more gun-crime, more accidents, more police-shoot-outs or more curious children blowing their faces off; more night-club shootings and lethal gang violence; if you can convince me that these things will be less frequent once we introduce firearms then by all means argue for it. But here's some things that are not going to persuade me..... a) The fearmongering "Oh, you wait and see! You'll be sorry you didn't have a gun when....blah...blah". b) The insults..."You think you know better....head in sand...blind faith...." c) Aphorisms such as "An armed society is a polite society". d) Dreadful analogies along the lines of "Automobiles have a higher accident rate so let's ban cars!" e) Comparing gun-control as just a short hop away from Nazi Germany. e) 'History' books by the likes of Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK ! I don't have anything against guns or the people who like shooting them. I just happen to believe that the introduction of free access to firearms in Great Britain will result in a rise in all those things I listed above - and for no tangible benefit as far as I can tell. So at this time and on balance I prefer the current situation*. * That doesn't mean it's ideal, optimal or beyond improvement. Last edited by Lixma; 08-12-2011 at 06:38 PM.
|
|
#6
08-12-2011, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The insurgents in Iraq taught the world you don't need guns, you just need explosives and cell phones to cause havoc.
|
|
#7
08-12-2011, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-12-2011, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Quote:
What do you mean exactly with "free access to firearms"? If deemed suitable by your local authorities, you can already own a gun in this country, as long as it's not a pistol (unless it's a muzzle loader), a semi-auto or fully auto full bore gun. The irony is that the legislation has been randomly adapted following the gun massacres where lunatics (who were as culpable of what they did as much as the geniuses that gave em licenses) went on a shooting spree with semi-autos, but you can still have a .22 rimfire semiauto (still lethal), a full bore bolt action rifle (VERY lethal indeed) and a plethora of smooth bore guns. My point is that whenever politics get in the way, it's always citizens that have to pay for it. I too am comfortable with armed people around (heck, I was raised in a country where even private guards have a holster and a Beretta in it!), and you definitely have way less petty crime and vandalism as you have here. How can a police force act effectively if deprived of the means to do it? The existence of armed response squads mean that the Government itself reckons there is a threat that needs to be counteracted effectively, so why giving the possibility to do it only to a small minority of police agents?! Again, the Cumbria shooter could have been stopped from the very beginning, since he was chased at a distance from unarmed police officers, which could only assist powerless to the massacre he carried on..
|
|
#9
08-12-2011, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm quite happy living without guns. If the stuff hit the fan I'd much rather that my neighbour has to come and whack me in the face than shoot my head off from across the street. If other countries want to allow guns that's fine, but that doesn't give them the right to criticise the UK, just as it doesn't give us in the UK the right to criticise the internal policies of other sovereign nations (and I'm talking specifically about gun law here, not frolics into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc etc).
As for the argument about guns = crime well who knows. You're better off looking at the type of people who will use guns for crime. Anybody can flip and go on a killing rampage. If you equate the law that guns are not allowed in the UK with the recent riots, then that's plain ignorance. I really can't see an ordinary person (or fact an armed policeman or soldier) in the UK starting to indiscriminately shoot at rioters, and allowing guns would in my opinion simply escalate the fear and death. And as for Stern's post about how the UK founded an Empire based on guns etc, that's also a teensy bit wrong too. In fact it was based on leadership and force of will, and the leaders were b&stards. The number of professional soldiers involved was small as most of the controlling forces in any territory were local levies. And of course a nations peoples move on from their past. Don't be too sure about the character of British reserve as it's a veneer - we may not allow guns but scratch us a little bit and we'll bite your face off. Hood
|
|
#10
08-12-2011, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I always admired and will always admire the determination of the British, the best "can-do" attitude I've ever seen, but it's far from what things used to be me thinks, just like many other countries. At least you kept the positive spirit and the good ales 
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
