If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Of course, if people here were allowed to own guns then you could guarantee that 100% of burglars, robbers, muggers and most other criminals would carry guns- as opposed to now, when very few actually do.
I still fail to see any negative impact on people's lives by banning ownership of guns- let alone on their 'personal freedom'.
No, it makes them more safe; not less. People cannot rely on the state to protect them, they're not omnipresent.
Doubtful. Allowing legal ownership of guns makes mugging etc. a considerably riskier business. Especially considering that practically anyone you choose to victimise has the exact same means of defending themselves, unlike now.
I don't.
Figures from America certainly don't suggest people are any safer because of it.
And that's before you factor disgruntled workers/ people with a developing mental condition who one day flip and take out a few people. In this country, most of such people resort to assaulting others or at worst using the likes of a baseball bat or a knife, which while quite dangerous turns out to be not nearly as effective killing weapon.
Unless the mugger in question offers their potential victim to draw at the count of three, a gun will do the victim no good. Muggers will come up to them weapon already in hand. Most people who attempt to get their own gun out will most likely get shot for their efforts.
Exactly what happens here to those people who are no criminals but decide to start to carry a knife for personal defence, incidentally.
Mother in law being a pain? Check out the weaponry's wide selection of flame throwers...
I think, in a round about kind of way he was, by suggesting more has been solved through diplomacy e.t.c.
Whatever, maybe he wasn't and I misread, I'm not advocating young children getting their hands on uzi's either lol!
Just sayin'
I think that says more about your attitude towards the US, than it does about the US
Well, then irony doesn't exactly appear to be your best skill.
While my initial post was an exaggeration, it still describes the opinion of many "pro-weaponry" groups/organisations in the U.S. When people may buy fully automated weapons in some states for the purpose of "home defense" that says a lot of the mentality of the government in those states. If it was up to societies like the NRA, everyone would be allowed to purchase landmines over the desk...
In a period between 2002-2004, all sales involving automatic weapons were forbidden, leading to a decrease in crime involving the same type of weapons. When they lifted the prohibition, the number of crimes rose to the same level as before. (I read the relevant articles in Norwegian, so no use to post them here unfortunately). I think the numbers speak for themselves.
That's not what you said though; or anything like it in fact.
Well, then you got me wrong. NRA clearly believes that you can defend yourself given enough firepower imo, i.e. the "solving problems" statement, which I admit was a bit too vague. But do you have any arguments pro/con in the debate instead of trying to twist my opinion?
I'm not trying to twist your opinion - you said something which even you admit is way to vague and actually seemed like trying to twist the opinions of gunowners to say they think it 'can solve almost any problem' and then witter on about mothers-in-law.
if you meant to say that gun ownership brigade think gun ownership is useful to protect against crime or because they don't trust the state you should have just said so...
I did post an argument where I think societies like the NRA (The national rifle associatoin) in the U.S. do actually believe that people will be able to protect themselves given that they have the right to purchase almost any (up to an extent) weapon. If you read some pages related to the NRA online, you'll see a range of varous arguments they set forth in order to keep those rights. I also posted an argument where I explained that crime rates involving automatic weapons were closely related to the availability of the exact same types of weapons, which is an argument against liberal weapon legislation.
If a similar person in the US experiences the same breakdown and they have a gun at home, as countless law abiding citizens do, they will as likely as not shoot a number of people dead.
Nothing is gained from individuals owning guns. Nothing.
Fair point to be honest althou your not addressing the issue of if someone wants a gun to cause a pre-meditated attack dont you think someone should have the right to defend themselves. im not sure how i feel about gun laws and the issue of attack, my last post was more to do with gun accidents which i do not think is a good reason to ban guns.
Perhaps, but there's really now way to be completely sure that the person being allowed to purchase a weapon is responsible. Yes, he/she might have no criminal record, a "history of good behaviour" etc, but that's not enough to determine if that person is suited to handle a weapon, let alone fully automated weapons. Also, even if a person is suited enough, you can't be assured that no one else will ever have access to the weapon.
First of all, I just have to say that it's not "no sex until 18"; it's no one over 18 has sex with anyone under 18. As in, if you're 30 years old, it is NOT ok for you to scrumph a 12 year old.
I'm not saying that it's acceptable that this man allowed an 8 year old shoot an Uzi, but I don't think that it's wrong for children to shoot guns. OBVIOUSLY the where, who, and what is important but let's say there is a 10 year old boy who goes up north with his father to go hunting. I don't think that's really so bad.
It's hypocritical that I think the SA80 is great because british soldiers use it then, because both are killing weapons. But obviously one is much better at schoolyard shootings, being able to fit a fully automatic weapon in your coat pocket is a bad recipe.
I'm going to do a namaste on this one and ask - why do we need guns at all? It's all just stupid.
Well on a strictly utilitarian argument, the answer would be 'yes' wouldn't it?
Incidentally that principle is used by everybody- including the US- to determine what weapons should be restricted or banned altogether. The only difference is where do different countries draw the line of what is acceptable.
How many people can a deranged person kill with a knife before someone takes him to the floor and disarms him......? 1, 2 perhaps?
How many people can a deranged person kill with an automatic weapon before being disarmed.....? 20, 30?
It would take someone with a stick to disarm someone with a knife, what if they have an Uzi?
:yes:
There's a reason why the bayonet's main use is opening tins and why we equip the infantry with rifles
Because they are fun.
Frankly, much more fun imho. Bloody MoD wouldn't let us play with them as much though :crying:
ETA GPMGs and Warrior's 30mm cannon are also damn good fun. As are artillery demos as long as you're far enough away to properly appreciate