Las Vegas

rolf_f

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

there absolutely no requirement for joe punter to carry a gun of any type, would be a disaster, we could however hold a referendum? let the people speak.

Yes, referendums are always the best way to sort out complex issues involving nuanced arguments. What could possibly go wrong?

You'll get 17 million idiots pointing at a slogan on a bus and nodding

Great idea. And if we do arm the police we can spend the £350m on the NHS!

PBlakeney wrote:

To explain a fully automatic machine gun purely as a means of defence seems to be pushing the boundary into another stratosphere.

Apparently (according to the internet) 14% of Americans believe in zombies and I'm pretty sure I'd want a fully automatic machine gun to fend off a zombie apocalypse (that I think is about 45 million Americans who could see a need for a machine gun for defence).

DeVlaeminck

PBlakeney wrote:

Yup! When I was a youngster it was considered quite normal to teach people how to make improvised weapons. (Hang over from the war and National service?). I know how to make a very effective weapon from a newspaper for example.
e.

Millwall brick?

twist83

DeVlaeminck wrote:

twist83 wrote:

Firearms deaths and gun crime have risen significantly since the Semi Auto Rifle ban and the Pistol ban in the UK. However you can still purchase a Semi Auto Shotgun which will hold around 12-14 rounds and also have Solid Slug ammunition. I have one of these and it would do far more damage than a pistol. So the UK laws are non-nonsensical and born out of knee jerk reaction.

.

The difference being it's difficult to conceal a shotgun and shotguns have a legitimate use whereas other than for target shooting I can't see the reason to carry a pistol.

You have never been able to 'carry' a pistol in the UK. Not like the US. Actually pistols are not banned in this country. But restricted.

If you wanted to do something bad with a shotgun, you would chop it down or find a way to conceal it to be honest. All the mass shootings in the US involve long guns i.e rifles generally as a main weapon.

You are very right. Target Shooting is a legitimate sport, thousands in this country still do so. Also after the Dunblane Masscare the Cullen report recommended restrictions not a 'ban'. But it was ignored. Guns to be held at clubs etc etc.

I think a lot of people might be surprised what is still available on a UK FAC. Semi Auto Shotguns with 12-14 round capacity and Solid Slug Ammo, Semi Auto .22RF Rifles that look like these evil 'Assualt' rifles. No limit on mag capacity. Long Barrel Semi Auto .22RF Pistols or .38/.44 etc revolvers.

Expanding ammunition is also issued if you use rifles etc for hunting. Then you have the Lever Release Rifles. Which are basically an 'Assault rifle' which can be cycled as quick as a Semi Auto rifle, plus other stuff.

However no one has gone nuts with any of these in the UK which were legally held. Largely due I believe to tightened checks when issuing a FAC in the first place included checks with GP's etc.

crispybug2

With regard to carrying guns, when I was on holiday in the Dominican Republic earlier this year I was talking to a couple from Boston, they were saying that the carrying of concealed weapons had been banned (under much protest apparently) in Boston and many other major American cities. So, do you know what are one of the best sellers In gunshops now ? Hip holsters!! It really is just madness.

Matthewfalle

Hip holsters are rubbish - generally your shooter is quite heavy and all they do is pull your trousers down and make you look like you can't dress yourself.

Thy also mean that when you undo your belt everything slides onto the floor at a million miles an hour making crashing noises and everyone looks at you and wonders why you just can't do things like a normal person.

I once had a dude drop his shooter on my toes because it was in a hip holster. I expressed my displeasure suitably especially as I was wearing my brand new dancing boots and he got them dirty.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Yup! When I was a youngster it was considered quite normal to teach people how to make improvised weapons. (Hang over from the war and National service?). I know how to make a very effective weapon from a newspaper for example.
e.

Millwall brick?

Not familiar with that. More of a baton.
Edit - Googled. Similar.

Matthewfalle

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Bringing this back round to Las Vegas, it rather illustrates the point that violent people just grab whatever is to hand. If the country is knee deep in guns then one of them is more likely to get used.

Yup! When I was a youngster it was considered quite normal to teach people how to make improvised weapons. (Hang over from the war and National service?). I know how to make a very effective weapon from a newspaper for example.
To explain a fully automatic machine gun purely as a means of defence seems to be pushing the boundary into another stratosphere. Ban on the law abiding public having guns while the police have guns for the non-compliant seems the best compromise. And any solution will be a compromise.

Errr - yeah. You just roll it up. its not exactly an IED.

You can also use same said as urination tube if you need to go to the loo before scrapping with someone in an underpass..

pblakeney

Slightly more to it than that.

Matthewfalle

Yup. You have to bend it over in the middle.

It's the same design as mad Kim Joni's Phukaton V rocket he's developing.

Matthewfalle

Then again, are you referring to the urination tube rather than the rolled up newspaper mallet?

pblakeney

Matthewfalle wrote:

Yup. You have to bend it over in the middle.

It's the same design as mad Kim Joni's Phukaton V rocket he's developing.

Hard to carry though! Point being that there are always weapons to hand but an assault rifle is taking it too far. Zombie invasion excepted.

Matthewfalle

I tend to use my razor sharp acerbic wit.

Coupled with my evil genius intelligence it has been known to deflect even the largest bomb things that can be shot towards me.

tangled_metal

Zombie Millwall fans.! Now then I would agree with assault rifle ownership. Add in zombie leeds fans and you've got no excuse not to carry guns. In fact it's your civic duty!

Time we repealed gun controls!

Why? Why? Why? Did my auto correct show me typing g-u-n then change it to f-u-n? Is my autocorrect a member of the NRA?

Matthewfalle

Aren't Millwall fans generally not the brightest anyway so it would be difficult to tell zombie ones from non zombie ones?

Ben6899

Matthewfalle wrote:

I tend to use my razor sharp acerbic wit.

Coupled with my evil genius intelligence...

You must've had seven bells kicked out of you on a few occasions!

Matthewfalle

Ben6899 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I tend to use my razor sharp acerbic wit.

Coupled with my evil genius intelligence...

You must've had seven bells kicked out of you on a few occasions!

Fortunately I just bat them away with my Italian nose if it comes to fisticuffs.

Ben6899

Works every time.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I tend to use my razor sharp acerbic wit.

Coupled with my evil genius intelligence...

You must've had seven bells kicked out of you on a few occasions!

Fortunately I just bat them away with my Italian nose if it comes to fisticuffs.

I thought that Italian war heroes had a different tactic?

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I tend to use my razor sharp acerbic wit.

Coupled with my evil genius intelligence...

You must've had seven bells kicked out of you on a few occasions!

Fortunately I just bat them away with my Italian nose if it comes to fisticuffs.

I thought that Italian war heroes had a different tactic?

Yes. We sleep with your wives because we are better looking and better at making love than English-men.

That way we win hearts and minds and therefore the war.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I tend to use my razor sharp acerbic wit.

Coupled with my evil genius intelligence...

You must've had seven bells kicked out of you on a few occasions!

Fortunately I just bat them away with my Italian nose if it comes to fisticuffs.

I thought that Italian war heroes had a different tactic?

Yes. We sleep with your wives because we are better looking and better at making love than English-men.

That way we win hearts and minds and therefore the war.

I'm sure you could have made that claim in Roman times...

tangled_metal

Romans right? The last time Italians won any war? .

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Romans right? The last time Italians won any war? .

TBF, they were quite good at it. Their empire lasted longer than ours.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Romans right? The last time Italians won any war? .

TBF, they were quite good at it. Their empire lasted longer than ours.

Wasn't that through assimilation of other cultures? What I mean is they accepted other gods from around empire and kind of had a freedom of religion. Brought other, conquered nations into the Roman empire as part of it to serve it with benefits going back?

Of course that's Roman propaganda which they were very good at. The way they belittled Celtic cultures and others that were a threat. Kind of like the Tudors (with Shakespeare as a propagandist playwright) did with king Richard III.

BTW my history isn't what it perhaps should be so the above could be erroneous.

pblakeney

Yes, I am sure all those Christians revelled at the thought of a trip to Rome.

Matthewfalle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

tangled_metal

PBlakeney wrote:

Yes, I am sure all those Christians revelled at the thought of a trip to Rome.

After 313 and the edict of Milan or before?

What about all the other cultures and religions brought into Roman life by assimilation? One foundling religion gets a rough time and you write off the Roman empire. You've got to remember Christianity dictates one true God Roman empire was based on multiple gods. It's subversive religion so got opposed. Just like if they were factions opposed to the emperor or other central elements of Roman empire.

Just a thought, were the difficulties of early Christianity partly their own making? Controversial thought here, but was Jesus really the messiah or just a really naughty boy?!

pblakeney

A naughty boy obviously.
To suggest that the Roman Empire was a benign benevolent society is stretching a point. I doubt they were all that nice to their own countrymen.
Much like the British empire.

burnthesheep

I clicked on this thread being from the US and seeing the topic as "Las Vegas".

I open the last page here and see talk about the Roman Empire. Go figure. Here in the US the argument is fairly childish and sounds kind of like "Well it's muh right to muh guns, out of my cold dead hands. Well if everyone had a gun nobody would shoot nobody. "

One problem, aside from guns, with the US is that we have a society that largely rewards aggressive or violent response to conflict. We see those people as our leaders, boss at work, or people in power. The other.......we hide away our mental illness and poverty with shame.

tangled_metal

PBlakeney wrote:

A naughty boy obviously.
To suggest that the Roman Empire was a benign benevolent society is stretching a point. I doubt they were all that nice to their own countrymen.
Much like the British empire.

I never said that just that it accepted religion and cultures into its empire and conquered as much by assimilation as by the sword. No way can a society as brutal as the Roman empire be considered benevolent.

To the best of my knowledge, and that if the experts I've read about it, the only benevolent empire is the Indus culture. IIRC there's been no evidence to suggest anything but a benign culture in harmony with themselves and the planet.