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
Diesel
88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
I think the current laws in the UK make some sort of sense, in that people are allowed guns if they have a legitamate purpose for them. Therfore the banning of Automatic weapons seems perfectly fine, after all there are very few situations except full scale combat when there is any concievable point in having a fully automatic weapon.
I do think that the complete banning of handguns was silly though, as it denies people such as marksmen from being able to use these - even the owners who keep their guns locked up at gun clubs aren't allowed to use them, and for what? So there is less gun crime on the streets, sorry if I was a criminal I wouldn't use a legitamte gun that is recorded with the police..... Infact I believe the ban has put no dent into the amount of gun crime in England.
As for Thanatos and his AK47, fair enough, if you want one carry one - in your country you are allowed it. Although I believe an AK47 is a bit over the top for self defense.... Being an Ex Marine (by the sounds of it) I am sure you know that there are very few situations where there is a big advantage in having a big AK47 over a smaller weapon. As you probably know, spraying and praying is a rather wastefull method, as rarely do any but the first few bullets go anywhere near the intended target, I am sure with your training you would be able to more than cope with a smaller weapon....
Although I suppose it could be usefull if your truck is being chased by a pickup truck full militant gorillas armed to the teeth with M16A1s <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Since he posts on this forum, y'all MIGHT inquire from him as to his opinion of me... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
Diesel ~ the sheep would rather just stand there bleating pathetically while being herded to be butchered. Puts them on a "higher moral plane" to choose to be a victim rather than a combatant. Defending yourself is SOOOOOOOO barbaric. <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
"Care for some tea and crumpets before you murder me?"
Agree with most of what you just said.
You are of course forgetting the fun factor...There are no situations where there is any conceivable point to having golf clubs, tennis raquets, cricket bats, footballs, etc...Only reason is fun and entertainment. We actually need very little in this life. What we want is slightly more <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
all your table showed was that if firearms weren't freely available then 900 people would still be alive today.
I'ts no use saying that cars kill a lot more people, simply because there are a lot more cars, all of them trying to occupy the same space as a pedestrian.
Oh yes I have to admit shooting an AK47 would be fun... I am thinking about getting a Firearms Certificate when I am older (Want to get a nice precision rifle for target shooting) But my point was that it may just be a bit more than what is needed in the truck.... If you don't need it why not keep it locked up in a gun cabinet where it is less likely to get nicked?
But not many people are killed with golf clubs are they? (don't bother finding a table listing all the dumb Americans that have tripped over a golf club and died or ingested a tennis ball). There is a place for guns as entertainment but they do not belong on our streets.
I posted that table to show that the numbers of accidents in the home wasnt as apocolyptic as some have made out.
You want me to post the numbers of people who would be dead today if not for guns? I can assure you that guns save many more lives than they take.
Theres a lot more cars? Fine...But cars kill a far higher number of people proportional to their number.
Kentish,
Youre right...Im confusing the issue here...Recreational firearms and self defence are different things. My position on self defence is clear and backed up with plain facts from the (anti-gun) US government. Feel free to take a look through http://www.guncite.com .
As ive said before I wouldnt carry a gun for self defence but I want that choice.
hehe not sure why but that is a seriously funny image <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Explain to me, how many people would have been killed in World war 1, if guns hadn't been invented? Or World war 2, do you think if the Nazis didnt have guns the 6 million dead jews might have been able to fight back? I don't know how you came to your conclusion, but without guns the world would be a very different place. Sure people can kill people with knives and rocks, you just can't kill 100 in a few seconds with one.
That comment wasnt referring to the whole of recorded history. It was in response to your 900 would be alive statement. Something like 3 million people in the US defended themselves against armed agressors last year. Thats 3 million people who defended themselves and actually told the police about it. Im sure there are more who dont bother going to the police once the attack has finished and nobody was shot.
Obviously it would be nice if guns had never been invented but in case you missed it we were doing a damn fine job of killing each other for a lot longer beforehand.
Without guns the world would be a better place but until you can make sure that every gun on earth is gone then why must the law abiding innocents be disarmed while the criminal aggressors are allowed to run round with guns?
What is still more troubling is the backpedaling I see on the part of anti gunners in the US and abroad - tell them that over the last 10 years, injuries and deaths by accidental firearm discharges are down nearly 70% (National Consumer Safety Bureau and the CDC) and that firearm deaths of children account for less than .005% of all accidental childhood deaths (CDC), they say things like "youre making this up." Tell them that in England crimes with firearms were up nearly 40% (Kings center study, I forget the article) and that in the US, the Brady Bill and mandatory trigger locks have done nothing to stem gun crimes, they counter with mere insults that anyone of a pro gun mindset is unreasonable - sad, but true.
I can only offer the reasons I carry a firearm - having been the victim of a home invasion that left me in the hospital for 3 weeks with broken ribs and head injuries, I carry a Norinco .45 - 8 shots and plenty of spare ammunition. Ive also had occasion to use my shotgun in self defense - someone broke in weilding a baseball bat in my new residence - I had only to rack a shell into the chamber to make one of the intruders cry and another piss his pants.
I don't regret this at all and I defy anyone to tell me I'm wrong for doing so. <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
I don't know what the 'Kings Center/Centre' is so I don't know where you got those figures [perhaps you meant the King's Fund but I couldn't find that reference on their website], but as I said before, gun crimes against ordinary folk aren't increasing at that rate. Most gun crimes in this country are between rival gangs usually over drugs and therefore rarely affect innocent people.
And I think you'll find you made that story up about the granny having to take down her barbed wire. Unless you can find the reference and then I shall eat humble pie. I seem to remember a story from the US that is true though about a burglar falling through a skylight onto a kitchen knife and then successfully suing the homeowner. The day that happens in the UK will be the day I emigrate.
He is referring to the Kings College, London centre for defence studies. They recently produced a very extensive report on UK gun crime. Full transcript to be found HERE
The granny story is also sadly very true. I will try and dig the story out of the BBC site for you...Enjoy your humble pie when it gets there <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
Made it up eh? Do you like your Humple Pie Warm or with ice cream - I have Cookie Dough Ice cream: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1479000/1479852.stm (Granny story)
<IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0">
Yes it was indeed funded by a private group but seems relaible to me....
<IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I guess I'll be emigrating then....although even that ridiculous council decision isn't as bad as the American decisions like the skylight scandal.
We refer to you as "sheep" because you keep bleating the same delusional diatribe, and reality is such an elusive concept for you. Balddog being a noted exception! <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Is there some pervasive sexual pleasure y'all get from the cranial suppository over there... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
Anywhere else and guns are in the minority, if you want proper police statistics on gun crime I can go and get my dad to give me them, although it would take a few days. I don't know why you keep on telling us about the American system, this isn't America, their way of life and their value system is a lot different from ours. And long may it stay like that.
But they did. That was the specific reason they gave for ordering her to take it down. It came from their own mouths.
Whowhere,
Did you take a look at that Kings College, London report? It uses official UK police and government figures.
You tell me not to bring up the US in this when you have been using the US example of kids shooting themselves, school massacres in the US etc. You brought up the US on the first page and used it as an example as to what would happen here. I guess its ok to use the states to back up your point but when I disprove your point and use the states to back up my argument then its a big no no...Typical anti-gun tactics.
PS, in case you missed it...The UK is becoming more like the USA, or at least the criminal side of the UK is. Im afraid thats a fact that our govt doesnt want to fix. Instead of actually punishing criminals, they punish the law abiding.
When those with power and/or influence cannot affect the criminals, then they do the feel-good, and punish the law-abiding... must do SOMETHING in response to the hand-wringing, even when it is WRONG! The sheep's bleating compels it... <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
POINT IN FACT... you run examples of school "massacres" in the US... and the US has HOW MUCH LARGER a population that the UK??? <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0"> In actuality, statistically, the number of school shootings is REALLY rather MINISCULE, but is constantly sensationalized by the media. In actuality, the Oprah Winfrey's and Rosie O'Donnell's have created the shooting gallery situation in schools, where ONLY the miscreants have guns. There have been situations where a kid with a gun has been confronted by an armed adult, and the kid did a belly-flop. ONCE AGAIN (for those simple-minded amongst us), the miscreants are cowards, and when confronted by an equal force, cease and desist.
During the time that I coached high school sports, the idea of being in a gymnasium UNARMED was a scary proposition, even though mandated. Guess what? I STILL had a firearm with me, even though "illegal". To have made the choice to have disarmed myself, and been unable to protect the kids who were my responsibility would have been IMMORAL.
Men accept responsibility... sheep avoid it. The difference between some of you all and me... and once again, Balddog is an exception. He would appear to be a man amongst the bleating sheep. Even if he would not personally carry a weapon, he acknowledges the need for a populace to have a choice to arm itself.
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
Perhaps my reasoning may sound a bit naieve, but why must I rely on the police (who as established in many court cases have no legal obligation to protect me) to save me when they'll arrive usually after the crime has been committed or when I'm dead from stab wounds or a GSW to the head when they were trying to steal my DVD player for some crack? How in Gods name is allowing someone to kill me morally superior to taking proactive measures to defend my home and family?
Thats probably the biggest issue that troubles me, really. The critics and organized anti gunners all like to say guns are bad guns are dangerous etc - but will they be there for me when I need them? Probably not - they live in safer neighborhoods, with their own security (ie Rosie Odonnell who has ARMED guards). Tell me this, why is a celebrity or government official, who we elected to work for US, more deserving of protection than say a shmoe like me who earns maybe 40k a year? Who made their lives more worthy? <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="confused.gif" border="0">
And that's an interesting point about the protection of the president (and celebrities, although they usually have private bodyguards so it's not the same). I remember thinking that when I was watching 'In the Line of Fire' [excellent film] with Clint Eastwood playing a secret service agent. It is a film I grant you but I expect the reality is fairly similar in that these agents are expected to get in the way of a bullet. I know the president is an important person over there, but at the end of the day he is just another human being and I can't imagine anyone wanting to protect him by paying the ultimate price. Protection is one thing, but becoming a human shield is quite another.
I'm sure that the massacres have been blown out of proportion. However you're missing one large point. You STILL HAVE THEM. We have had 1, a great many years ago and none since. In that time you've had nearly 10. The fact that you have a larger population is nothing, if these kids didnt have access to guns then the massacres wouldn't have happened.
There was Dunblane and there was the school with the machete bloke. He hacked up lots of little kids and didnt need a gun.
That last one proves that the massacres may well have happened even if there were no guns.
Can you provide links to the 10 US massacres that have happened since 1996 please Whowhere. Id like to read up on them.
Diesel
88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">
Fair enough - but you said it yourself "private bodyguards." Private meaning they paid for and could thus afford such protection - me I can't afford that at all - so I choose to arm myself in case of attack. By this rationale, what Im doing isnt all that different. Still, you dont answer my question - why should we not take proactive measures to afford our self defence? Thats the only reason I say Brits have a victim mentality is because by the reasoning I see, it is morallly superior NOT to fight back and resistance to violent crime is somehow repugnant - correct me if I'm wrong....
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: DevilMan ]
We're not helpless sheep bleating away, and we certainly don't rely on you American macho men to protect us in our hour of need. There is no hour of need.
If you feel you can't rely on your police force to protect you or enforce the law and feel that you have to take the law into your own hands, then why do you tolerate it? Rather than hiding behind a gun, why don't you do something active: do you have a Special Constabulary in the US? Marmite, one of the posters at TheSite, is an SPC and dedicates a few hours each week fighting crime. He doesn't cower in a corner with an AK47 waiting to be robbed; he does something active to try to reduce crime levels, and I think we should all applaud him for that.
It's got nothing to do with "moral superiority", but perhaps America has more of a every-man-for-himself culture than we do. I don't know. Perhaps we will end up in that state in a few years time.