water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Right then, so unless you've first hand experience with something then you can't have a vaild opinion on it? Bollocks. Bigoted bollocks.

I don't care about the responsible gun owners. It's the irresponsible ones that will end up killing someone. But what's the odd death as long as you get to shoot stuff at the weekends?

quoting one of my favourite movies, "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks", so yes, we all have an opinion, the point is whether this opinion is an informed one or not.

I can say "hey, I don't like what you guys at the Large Hadron Collider are doing cos you're gonna make a black hole and we'll be all swallowed by it", but it's obvious that if my opinion is not based on substantial evidence they might as well laugh at it. Then the Government gets scared cos I start a mad campaign against it, the population really thinks the LHC will cause the Armageddon, and they decide to shut it down for good..

And yes, before you say it I know that there's no comparison between firearms and the LHC, I'm just making an example on how the will of a majority can indeed be wrong and driven by laziness and sheep attitude (it's easier to read on The Sun about the remote theoretical dangerous potential of a piece of machinery we don't actually know anything about than getting a PhD in Astrophysics..)

Yes, society makes choices, but you know they're not all good ones, and the disarming the population is a bad, bad one.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

quoting one of my favourite movies, "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks", so yes, we all have an opinion, the point is whether this opinion is an informed one or not.

I can say "hey, I don't like what you guys at the Large Hadron Collider are doing cos you're gonna make a black hole and we'll be all swallowed by it", but it's obvious that if my opinion is not based on substantial evidence they might as well laugh at it. Then the Government gets scared cos I start a mad campaign against it, the population really thinks the LHC will cause the Armageddon, and they decide to shut it down for good..

And yes, before you say it I know that there's no comparison between firearms and the LHC, I'm just making an example on how the will of a majority can indeed be wrong and driven by laziness and sheep attitude (it's easier to read on The Sun about the remote theoretical dangerous potential of a piece of machinery we don't actually know anything about than getting a PhD in Astrophysics..)

Yes, society makes choices, but you know they're not all good ones, and the disarming the population is a bad, bad one.

Ok.. So my opinion less 'informed' because I don't handle guns regularly?
My opinion is informed, you're patronising me and also assuming I'm stupid simply because I disagree with you. Like I said before, bigoted.

Why can't you stick to what we're talking about? LHC ? What? Stop throwing out all these decoys.

If you relax the laws on gun ownership, at some point in the future someone who shouldn't have a gun will get one legally, not a criminal, a regular person who appears normal, then has a bad day. As far as I can recall, Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria were all carried out by people with access to legally held firearms and all, interestingly, in rural areas. Away from the big cities with the gangs and guns, these people were all seen as normal law abiding citizens.

You say on one hand that the police/government are incompetent, yet these same people would be, and are responsible for licencing guns, what makes you think that they will get it right. You already showed you have no faith in them. The only way is to make it very, very hard to legally own a gun.

You're pretty good at name calling and character asassination, but when it comes down to why you think the law is wrong you've got nothing to say.

So come on, what would be your ideal criteria for gun ownership, for regular people? (let me guess... a criteria that includes you?)

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Ok.. So my opinion less 'informed' because I don't handle guns regularly?
My opinion is informed, you're patronising me and also assuming I'm stupid simply because I disagree with you. Like I said before, bigoted.

ok, so can you tell me off the top of your head what are the procedures and rules in act at the moment to obtain a gun license, what kind of guns you can get and what kind of licenses are out there? I'm afraid that the bigot here is you, who can't think of a suitable solution just cos you have no interest or are afraid of something, so you wipe it off.

Why can't you stick to what we're talking about? LHC ? What? Stop throwing out all these decoys.

decoys? I'm just giving parallel examples that can help you see things without the "bad firearms!" blindfold..

If you relax the laws on gun ownership, at some point in the future someone who shouldn't have a gun will get one legally, not a criminal, a regular person who appears normal, then has a bad day. As far as I can recall, Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria were all carried out by people with access to legally held firearms and all, interestingly, in rural areas. Away from the big cities with the gangs and guns, these people were all seen as normal law abiding citizens.

there we go, another example of not actually reading my posts.. I have NEVER said RELAX gun laws, just make them more adequate and you won't need to prohibit only certain guns..

As for the 3 massacres (since WW2) that you mentioned, I think they're a drop in an ocean of murder and violence that we're surrounded by, the firearms became the scapegoat, but the responsibility was in the institutions that deemed that people suitable for gun detention.

You say on one hand that the police/government are incompetent, yet these same people would be, and are responsible for licencing guns, what makes you think that they will get it right. You already showed you have no faith in them. The only way is to make it very, very hard to legally own a gun.

I'm sorry, but what an utterly insane solution!!! So if an institution fails to deliver on a service, you remove it instead of improving the institution itself?!

You know when I mentioned the fact that if you're ignorant on the topic you can't understand? The gun club social reality I was talking about is a perfect example of how a simple thing like attending such clubs can be a solution to spot loonies (like it happens in Switzerland), but you can't understand this obviously unless you ever frequented one.

You're pretty good at name calling and character asassination, but when it comes down to why you think the law is wrong you've got nothing to say.

yeah man and you're pretty touchy yourself, and I already told you what's wrong with the law, if you don't even bother reading my posts then why wasting my and your time?

So come on, what would be your ideal criteria for gun ownership, for regular people? (let me guess... a criteria that includes you?)

oh, for the love of... ok, again..

1) Whoever wants to get a license should have a clean penal record (him and everybody in his close family and/or living in the same household).
2) You need a series of psychological tests to assess whether you are at risk of developing socio-path behaviour. People with childhood traumatic experiences or any other condition shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
3) There should be different levels of gun holding licenses (according to the firearm possessed), each coming with mandatory training session and responsibility of safe storage
4) You will need to frequent your local gun club and integrate in social activities, i.e. events, competitions, open days etc..
5) the police can come and check at anytime that you have everything stored safely
6) you will do recurrent tests or short visits to local doctors who can check on your psychological status.

I could go on for a while, or simply make a photocopy of the gun regulations in Switzerland. Switzerland is highly unlikely to be invaded anytime soon, still, the male citizens feel invested and understand the responsibility of being part of the civil guard, making them proud and committed citizens. A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone.

[brando]

" A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone."

Leaving aside the IRA. UDA. PIRA. UVF. RIRA. RHD. and various other para-military groups who did an awful lot of harm to the peaceful citizens of their country?

Or maybe consider the cross-border flow of drugs for guns across the Rio Grande?

But it's really no use talking to a person whose gun fetish outweighs his compassion....

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by brando

" A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone."

Leaving aside the IRA. UDA. PIRA. UVF. RIRA. RHD. and various other para-military groups who did an awful lot of harm to the peaceful citizens of their country?

Or maybe consider the cross-border flow of drugs for guns across the Rio Grande?

But it's really no use talking to a person whose gun fetish outweighs his compassion....

What?! did I say a terrorist para-military discipline? Brando, you're welcome like anybody else in this conversation, but please stop trolling.

If I'm a gun fetishist then what are you? A delusional bigot that still thinks there can be a world without firearms, after centuries of his own kingdom having poured others' blood? How naive..

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

ok, so can you tell me off the top of your head what are the procedures and rules in act at the moment to obtain a gun license, what kind of guns you can get and what kind of licenses are out there? I'm afraid that the bigot here is you, who can't think of a suitable solution just cos you have no interest or are afraid of something, so you wipe it off.

I'm happy with the current situation, ie: Total ban on Handguns and Semi Automatics.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

decoys? I'm just giving parallel examples that can help you see things without the "bad firearms!" blindfold..

I have never once in this discussion said that guns are bad or good, it's you who keeps making this about good and bad, not me.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

there we go, another example of not actually reading my posts.. I have NEVER said RELAX gun laws, just make them more adequate and you won't need to prohibit only certain guns..

More adequate? You mean lift the ban on Handguns and Semi's? That's relaxing in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

As for the 3 massacres (since WW2) that you mentioned, I think they're a drop in an ocean of murder and violence that we're surrounded by, the firearms became the scapegoat, but the responsibility was in the institutions that deemed that people suitable for gun detention.

The only people responsible were the shooters, they all had gun licences, so they passed the criteria at the time. The reason you can't own a semi automatic is Michael Ryan. The reason you can't own a handgun is Thomas Hamilton. Not because the system failed, they failed, as gun owners. You want a nanny state whilst not wanting nanny state, if they are banned there is no grey area.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You know when I mentioned the fact that if you're ignorant on the topic you can't understand? The gun club social reality I was talking about is a perfect example of how a simple thing like attending such clubs can be a solution to spot loonies (like it happens in Switzerland), but you can't understand this obviously unless you ever frequented one.

The obvious soultion here is that you move to Switzerland.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

oh, for the love of... ok, again..

1) Whoever wants to get a license should have a clean penal record (him and everybody in his close family and/or living in the same household).
2) You need a series of psychological tests to assess whether you are at risk of developing socio-path behaviour. People with childhood traumatic experiences or any other condition shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
3) There should be different levels of gun holding licenses (according to the firearm possessed), each coming with mandatory training session and responsibility of safe storage
4) You will need to frequent your local gun club and integrate in social activities, i.e. events, competitions, open days etc..
5) the police can come and check at anytime that you have everything stored safely
6) you will do recurrent tests or short visits to local doctors who can check on your psychological status.

Er, isn't that pretty much the current UK situation? We have Shotgun licences, and seperate firearms licences, you have to have your medical records checked, you have to have safe storage, you have to be a member of a gun club or designate the land where the guns will be used.

As for ongoing mental health checks, very, very hard to seperate the 'loonies'
as you call them from the responsible gun owners (if responsible gun owner isn't an oxy-moron)

Fact is all you have to do is show 'good reason' and as far as I'm concerned, looking a them, or firing them at weekends isn't a good enough reason to own a handgun or a semi, thankfully this also appears to be the stance taken inthe UK towards that type of gun ownership.

You want to collect or shoot a handgun / Semi / Machine gun in the UK?
You can't, why? Because people with legally held weapons went on a killing spree. We banned them because of legal gun owners, not criminals with guns. Like I said if you don't like it, move to Switzerland.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

I'm happy with the current situation, ie: Total ban on Handguns and Semi Automatics.

that is not even correct, you can still own muzzle loading guns and semiauto rimfire. Get your facts straight.

I have never once in this discussion said that guns are bad or good, it's you who keeps making this about good and bad, not me.

this is a petty point to be honest..

More adequate? You mean lift the ban on Handguns and Semi's? That's relaxing in my opinion.

if there was no adequate adapting of the laws yes, but this is not what my point was.

The only people responsible were the shooters, they all had gun licences, so they passed the criteria at the time. The reason you can't own a semi automatic is Michael Ryan. The reason you can't own a handgun is Thomas Hamilton. Not because the system failed, they failed, as gun owners. You want a nanny state whilst not wanting nanny state, if they are banned there is no grey area.

No, if you read the law, the people that appoint such licenses can be as responsible as the perpetrators of the crime. The ultimate and biggest responsibility is with the perps of course, but the institutions are responsible (because of their neglect despite the repeated reports) too.

This is probably the biggest nanny state on the planet, your Government doesn't trust you at all.

The obvious soultion here is that you move to Switzerland.

I wish I could, but I have to be here because of the specialised work that your lot can't do, and to pay for the welfare bunch that can't do anything else but claim their rights

Er, isn't that pretty much the current UK situation? We have Shotgun licences, and seperate firearms licences, you have to have your medical records checked, you have to have safe storage, you have to be a member of a gun club or designate the land where the guns will be used.

it's similar, but not the same, again, since you're so worried about the dangers of gun ownership, try and apply to get a license and see how actually easy it is.

As for ongoing mental health checks, very, very hard to seperate the 'loonies'
as you call them from the responsible gun owners (if responsible gun owner isn't an oxy-moron)

yeah, I suppose that your PhD in Psychology helped you giving a professional opinion on the matter.. your alleged funny punchline shows once again your ignorance on the subject. You think of a gun owner as it was a ticking bomb..

Fact is all you have to do is show 'good reason' and as far as I'm concerned, looking a them, or firing them at weekends isn't a good enough reason to own a handgun or a semi, thankfully this also appears to be the stance taken inthe UK towards that type of gun ownership.

yeah, that's your opinion, but then again it's the typical approach you have here, condescending and patronising towards everything that doesn't follow the herd.

You want to collect or shoot a handgun / Semi / Machine gun in the UK?
You can't, why? Because people with legally held weapons went on a killing spree. We banned them because of legal gun owners, not criminals with guns. Like I said if you don't like it, move to Switzerland.

no, you can't because of a combination of factors:
1) a certain politically correct layer of society pushed for it, fed by ignorance.
2) Tories couldn't go for an unpopular choice in front of the horror, besides an unarmed country is easier to control.
3) people don't understand their rights and the importance of defending them.

this could only happen in a country like the UK, where there are moral double standards (a gun is dangerous! Binge drinking is safe!) and pretentious moral values.. but above all where people are sheep enough to be imposed things without saying anything.

A little example for you: in the office where I work the new management (which is earning salaries two to 3 times higher than the previous) has decided to remove all the rubbish bins from the offices "to promote recycling" they said, but in reality they did it to cut costs. Instead of complaining and pointing the obvious (i.e. why is the new CEO earning two and a half times the salary of this country's Prime Minister?!), they just comply and waste time walking back and forth to the kitchen area to use the bins there..

A few months back they proposed to close the bars in our offices, again "to cut costs", and in front of the menace of no booze over lunch break there have been petitions, discussions and what not..

(drunken) sheep, nothing more, nothing less.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

that is not even correct, you can still own muzzle loading guns and semiauto rimfire. Get your facts straight.

You call me petty !

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

No, if you read the law, the people that appoint such licenses can be as responsible as the perpetrators of the crime. The ultimate and biggest responsibility is with the perps of course, but the institutions are responsible (because of their neglect despite the repeated reports) too.

This is probably the biggest nanny state on the planet, your Government doesn't trust you at all.

So what? I don't really trust them either.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I wish I could, but I have to be here because of the specialised work that your lot can't do, and to pay for the welfare bunch that can't do anything else but claim their rights

My lot? Seriously? move. Just leave.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it's similar, but not the same, again, since you're so worried about the dangers of gun ownership, try and apply to get a license and see how actually easy it is.

No, I don't want one.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, I suppose that your PhD in Psychology helped you giving a professional opinion on the matter.. your alleged funny punchline shows once again your ignorance on the subject. You think of a gun owner as it was a ticking bomb..

Ignorance of what? It boils down to what you think is 'good reason' to own a Handgun or Semi Automatic. I can't think of one.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, that's your opinion, but then again it's the typical approach you have here, condescending and patronising towards everything that doesn't follow the herd.

Pot, kettle? Seriously, you're a hypocrite. We're a herd are we/ simply because we disagree, you know nothing about me, you're making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

no, you can't because of a combination of factors:
1) a certain politically correct layer of society pushed for it, fed by ignorance.
2) Tories couldn't go for an unpopular choice in front of the horror, besides an unarmed country is easier to control.
3) people don't understand their rights and the importance of defending them.

What about the right to live in a country with tough gun laws?
Gun owners right more important than non gun owners are they?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

this could only happen in a country like the UK, where there are moral double standards (a gun is dangerous! Binge drinking is safe!) and pretentious moral values.. but above all where people are sheep enough to be imposed things without saying anything.

Now you're just talking rubbish, find me one single quote from anyone in a position of power in the UK that says binge drinking is safe. I know for a fact that guns are dangerous. So what you've just said is the exact opposite of what is clearly the truth, you'll say anything to justify your position.
What pretentious moral values are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

A little example for you: in the office where I work the new management (which is earning salaries two to 3 times higher than the previous) has decided to remove all the rubbish bins from the offices "to promote recycling" they said, but in reality they did it to cut costs. Instead of complaining and pointing the obvious (i.e. why is the new CEO earning two and a half times the salary of this country's Prime Minister?!), they just comply and waste time walking back and forth to the kitchen area to use the bins there..

A few months back they proposed to close the bars in our offices, again "to cut costs", and in front of the menace of no booze over lunch break there have been petitions, discussions and what not..

(drunken) sheep, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet another irrelevant, meandering paragraph.

Fact - Semi Automatics were banned in this country because a gun owner, a gun club member, walked through a rural town and shot people. Handguns were banned because a gun owner went into a school and killed children.

Your only relevant point seems to be that a having a hobby is a good enough reason to own a lethal weapon. I don't think it is. Ok?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

You call me petty !

.
First I didn't call you petty, the point was petty.
Second, if you think that's a petty difference, you don't get the whole point of my argument (that though I had figured out long ago..).

So what? I don't really trust them either.

yes, but they're the ones with the stick. Are you gonna wave your voting card when they decide for you once again?

My lot? Seriously? move. Just leave.

I really can't, but people like you make this place less pleasant than what it actually is. Mine was a dickish answer to a dickish statement.

No, I don't want one.

agreed, but just for the sake of science, to see how easy it is to get one.

Ignorance of what? It boils down to what you think is 'good reason' to own a Handgun or Semi Automatic. I can't think of one.

I can't think of a good reason to snort cocaine or smoke weed, still, other people enjoy doing it.

Pot, kettle? Seriously, you're a hypocrite. We're a herd are we/ simply because we disagree, you know nothing about me, you're making assumptions.

instead of pondering the opinion of a foreigner, who might see things from a different perspective, all you can do is taking it personally like I'm talking to you, relax.

What about the right to live in a country with tough gun laws?
Gun owners right more important than non gun owners are they?

I haven't asked for less tough laws, just for laws that make sense. With stricter (or shall I say, more effective) gun laws and semiauto and pistols we all win.

Now you're just talking rubbish, find me one single quote from anyone in a position of power in the UK that says binge drinking is safe. I know for a fact that guns are dangerous. So what you've just said is the exact opposite of what is clearly the truth, you'll say anything to justify your position.
What pretentious moral values are you talking about?

sure, but what are they doing to stop or reduce it? Nothing.. let me think why, maybe cos too many people like it, or maybe cos the Government gets a lot of revenue off the selling of alcohol and tobacco..
Everything has a dangerous potential, even your kitchen knives, your car.. shall we forbid everything that is potentially dangerous?

Yet another irrelevant, meandering paragraph.

Fact - Semi Automatics were banned in this country because a gun owner, a gun club member, walked through a rural town and shot people. Handguns were banned because a gun owner went into a school and killed children.

wrong again.

Your only relevant point seems to be that a having a hobby is a good enough reason to own a lethal weapon. I don't think it is. Ok?

no, you're looking at the shallow end me thinks. It's beyond that, but if you're happy to think otherwise..

[brando]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

1) a certain politically correct layer of society pushed for it, fed by ignorance.
2) Tories couldn't go for an unpopular choice in front of the horror, besides an unarmed country is easier to control.
3) people don't understand their rights and the importance of defending them.

this could only happen in a country like the UK, where there are moral double standards (a gun is dangerous! Binge drinking is safe!) and pretentious moral values.. but above all where people are sheep enough to be imposed things without saying anything.

And you call me a delusional bigot? You're priceless.