I'm with Izzard

Westerberg

“And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have a really dodgy heart....."

simonaspinall

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and people buy guns.

MattC59

Shotguns, handguns, rifles etc are designed with one purpose, to kill things. Unless they're a specifically designed small caliber target shooting weapon, even then, the clue is inthe title "Weapon: An instrument of attack or defense in combat"

Westerberg

simonaspinall wrote:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and people buy guns.

I refer you to my original post.

simonaspinall

Westerberg wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and people buy guns.

I refer you to my original post.

Indeed. I don't get why americans insist so much on the right to 'arms' based on an agreement following a domestic war over 2 centuries ago.

Cressers

Because they see in being armed a defence against any attempt by the state to infringe upon their constitutional rights. Armed struggle was an integeral part of american history. It is surely no coincidence that as the sort of weapons and activites the UK population are allowed are restricted, so civil liberties have been eroded as well.

Already an idiot 'criminologist' was on the radio this morning calling for ammunition and guns to be stored seperatly, obviously he has never been involved in farming or pest control!

Under media pressure that 'Something Must Be Done' we''l no doubt have another tranche of ill thought out and ineffective legislation rushed through. While inconvienencing the law-abiding it will have absolutly no effect on the illegal use of firearms. The post-Hungerford legislation did nothing to prevent Dunblane, and the post-Dunblane laws did nothing to prevent the Cumbrian shootings. It is impossible to legislate against evil intent.

simonaspinall

Cressers wrote:

Because they see in being armed a defence against any attempt by the state to infringe upon their constitutional rights. Armed struggle was an integeral part of american history. It is surely no coincidence that as the sort of weapons and activites the UK population are allowed are restricted, so civil liberties have been eroded as well.

Already an idiot 'criminologist' was on the radio this morning calling for ammunition and guns to be stored seperatly, obviously he has never been involved in farming or pest control!

Under media pressure that 'Something Must Be Done' we''l no doubt have another tranche of ill thought out and ineffective legislation rushed through. While inconvienencing the law-abiding it will have absolutly no effect on the illegal use of firearms. The post-Hungerford legislation did nothing to prevent Dunblane, and the post-Dunblane laws did nothing to prevent the Cumbrian shootings. It is impossible to legislate against evil intent.

Just because something is a constitutional right and was made so a long time ago it doesn't mean it is right. Society changes and the the type of society you want to live in.

As for america - Look at the murder rate...that's what happens when guns are in your legislative DNA and you let americans get their hands on them.

I also think assessing gun ownership as a 'civil liberty' is going a bit far and the idea of restricting access to them is hardly erroding civil liberties.

As for the idea od 'defending' yourself - What do you think most burglars or muggers are going to be carrying? A feather duster? All that happens is an arms race amongst the people. Is that a good example of a functional society?

Cressers

"Society changes and the the type of society you want to live in."

But not always for the better...

simonaspinall

Cressers wrote:

"Society changes and the the type of society you want to live in."

But not always for the better...

What? So you want more guns to be part of society?

Now weigh in the percentage chance of a gun is in the hands of the wrong person who wants to use it for the wrong means.

If you want it so much go and live in America (presuming you live outside at the mo) as the UK made the decision a long time ago to restrict firearms and rightly so.

Cressers

Howe far would Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler have got if the populations had had the means to defend themselves?

finchy

Cressers wrote:

Howe far would Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler have got if the populations had had the means to defend themselves?

Very far. Apart from Pol Pot (probably), all of these dictators enjoyed a great deal of support from the people at the time.

Cressers

But not universal support. Totalitarians routinly rewrite history to suit themsleves and such rewriting becomes absorbed into the histroical narrative. My point being that an armed society is a freer, safer society.

Consider what may have happend if gun ownership were legal in the UK. If Derrick Bird had been leaglly shot dead or incapcitated by another gun owner at the scene of his first shooting how many other lives and injuries could have been saved?

simonaspinall

And these dictators had a lot more than guns/rifles.

clanton

Guns as a defense - who'd like to guess at the number of guns Eugene Terreblanche had in his house when they came for him, armed with machetes? Didn't help him much now did it?
Apparently more people are killed by their OWN guns than by any others.

simonaspinall

Cressers wrote:

But not universal support. Totalitarians routinly rewrite history to suit themsleves and such rewriting becomes absorbed into the histroical narrative. My point being that an armed society is a freer, safer society.

Consider what may have happend if gun ownership were legal in the UK. If Derrick Bird had been leaglly shot dead or incapcitated by another gun owner at the scene of his first shooting how many other lives and injuries could have been saved?

So you're assuming that someone in the heat of the moment can use a gun (if they are allowed to carry it) in a fashion to incapacitate someone without bringing others into danger - you're also assuming that this person has identified who has fired and the intention - Effectively being eyewitness, jury, judge and executioner after gunshots and panic have ensued.

You're a very optimistic person.

Cressers

So the govt can have guns, criminals can have guns, but the poor law-abiding people can't.

Anonymous

I think its a bit early for this debate.

Seanos

Cressers wrote:

My point being that an armed society is a freer, safer society.

So is the US safer and more free than the UK?

Cressers wrote:

Consider what may have happend if gun ownership were legal in the UK. If Derrick Bird had been leaglly shot dead or incapcitated by another gun owner at the scene of his first shooting how many other lives and injuries could have been saved?

And then in addition to this wildly speculative and hypothetical bit of wishful thinking, factor in the number of extra deaths and serious injuries that society as a whole would suffer because of widespread gun ownership in the first place.

ratsbeyfus

Cressers wrote:

So the govt can have guns, criminals can have guns, but the poor law-abiding people can't.

Sod the guns... I want my own nuclear sub and a crack-ho...

Damn those governments and their criminals... gnash, gnash, whimper, dribble.


I'm with you cressers.... but then again I'm a sociopathic moron.

1footedninja

Guns won't get banned.

You have to stop the people making the guns, then get all guns out in circulation out of circulation.

Yeah like thats gonna happen!

Like ending knife crime, nice to think its gonna happen but theres alot of knives about!

So what i'm really saying is it comes down to 'responsibility' - you can give anyone anything and they can potentially turn it into a weapon. Sort of anyway I'm sure you folk can come up with something you can't use as a weapon.

My heart and sympathy goes out to the victims and their family - in that age old 'victim' way that we all identify with.

rolf_f

Cressers wrote:

The post-Hungerford legislation did nothing to prevent Dunblane, and the post-Dunblane laws did nothing to prevent the Cumbrian shootings. It is impossible to legislate against evil intent.

That doesn't mean that the legislation was ineffective. What we don't know is if it prevented other shootings from happening in the first place. Hungerford caused a ban on semi automatic weapons - they were not used in this case or Dunblane irrc.

And, if it is impossible to legislate against evil intent, why do we bother with any laws at all?

proto

This is quite amusing

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.ph ... +on+a+bike

1footedninja

And, if it is impossible to legislate against evil intent, why do we bother with any laws at all?

To cover up for all the evil that the UK monarchy and the UK government & all people in those positions of power around the globe can control others to do, through mass mind control tactics whereby the 'good' people ie pleb's, keep at what their doing because they 'believe' they are doing it for good intentions, which in some ways they are, because the best way to control a huge amount of people is to instill FEAR into them, plus they have bills to pay, mortgages (banks debts - you owe money to a bank for funny money - purely digital - doesn't actually exist ie tangible - that only exists in funny money land) but really there is a more sinister nefarious plan going on behind it all.

New World Order anyone ? which broken down simply means those who are ALREADY in control and in high positions of power tightening that control and bringing about a DRAMA-TIC change in the world STAGE of political power.

Oh!... wait, this is the bit where we start getting 'nutjob' and 'crackpot' again......

THE INFORMATION WAR - who is controlling you ?

ratsbeyfus

1footedninja wrote:

And, if it is impossible to legislate against evil intent, why do we bother with any laws at all?

To cover up for all the evil that the UK monarchy and the UK government & all people in those positions of power around the globe can control others to do, through mass mind control tactics whereby the 'good' people ie pleb's, keep at what their doing because they 'believe' they are doing it for good intentions, which in some ways they are, because the best way to control a huge amount of people is to instill FEAR into them, plus they have bills to pay, mortgages (banks debts you owe money to a bank for funny money that only exists in funny money land) but really there is a more sinister nefarious plan going on behind it all.

New World Order anyone ?

Oh!... wait, this is the bit where we start getting 'nutjob' and 'crackpot' again......

THE INFORMATION WAR - who is controlling you ?

nutjob

1footedninja

I'll mention Nazi's as well then, then this thread is well and truly screwed.


Moo!

Monkeypump

I do love a nice post-lunch conspiracy theory.

1footedninja

Me too - ahh .. now back to changing and implementing 'the law' so the Hoi polloi has even less freedoms than they did in the first place.

I just LOVE my job.

rolf_f

proto wrote:

This is quite amusing

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.ph ... +on+a+bike

Lol - what they need is a combined pump, CO2 inflator and gun. Then you could mount it under the bottle cage where it would be handy in case you needed to do a cycle by......

Of course, it would make a right mess of the innertube if you pressed the wrong trigger!

simonaspinall

So if the petulant teenage-marxists on the thread get their way and have more guns more people will still wind up dead.

1footedninja

err.. you don't have 'more guns' unless 'more guns' get manufactured - the guns are already out there, plus more get manufactured to top up those already out there. Go figure.

stopping the manufacture of guns ( and bullets obivously) pushes the manufacturing underground, you get more 'dodgy' guns that 'could possibly' kill the person using it - possibly not a bad thing when you think of most of the reasons 'unresponsible' people use them.

wherever there is a 'free' open market for a thing you can also guarantee their is a black market that exists for the very same thing - 'illicit' or otherwise. 'illicit' being a current particular social 'seen as taboo' but can also be seen as 'not so taboo' or a overt govern-mental legislature of a 'seen as taboo' or something seen as 'not so taboo', of a particular society at one particular point in time.

who controls those who control ?

Now if only more guns where like this:



oops another can of worms, just been opened!!!

ExeterSimon

Bearing in mind that the large majority (99%) of gun crime is carried out with weapons that are already illegal or used by someone without a license any further legislation is pointless.