Yes, because I'm far more concerned about whether people are safer than whether they feel safer, which is an easily manipulated, subjective measure.
-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
The Right to Bear Arms
- Thread starter gurusan
- Start date
Yes, because I'm far more concerned about whether people are safer than whether they feel safer, which is an easily manipulated, subjective measure.
I don't know what %age of folks would want them... And it would also depend heavily on the nature of any legistlation for ownership too. So it's a hard thing to predict... But I'm sure you're going to suggest you know the exact figure far more accurately than any one else
Nope, unlike britboy I am not going to make up numbers when I don't know them.
Anyway, again, as per the OP, the suggestion is a US approach? Hence that's what seems to being envisage. ie: Greater numbers than just a few thousand
I don't think a repeal of the handgun ban would lead to such a situation though.
Considering my neighbour, it is unlikely but I don't think it would bother me overly much. The number of middle aged women that go on shooting sprees is pretty limited.
I have a four year old daughter.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
er .. ok. My post was really intended for RTM.
You're comparing a large piece of wood used hundreds of years ago, to a state of the art modern compact weapon far more lethal. But if you feel you have to sink to this sort of argument, fair enough.
Should I start with a wiki of suicide figures by bows? Or instead with school mass arrowings?
Have you wondered why the armed forces and police might employ guns instead of bows and arrows?
Can we bury this daft topic now?
How do you know? How do you know 3 school shootings haven't been prevented? Or 3 fathers going out in a blaze of glory along with their wives & kids?
This comment is very contrived and illogical, but let's go with it...
So, if we assume a handful of kids wish to go into a school and vent their anger with a gun, what is most likely going to prevent this from happening:-
- A gun in their house, which they can have access to in minutes of having the urge?
- A gun, that maybe they can get, if they maybe know the right people, and maybe can go to the right area, and maybe have enough money, and maybe have enough gusto to follow through with all of that?
I'd prefer all those youths have to go through as many hoops as possible, instead of knowing they can possibly get their hands on a gun in 2 minute flat.
Seems like common sense to me. So why risk it...
Last edited:
Personally I am far more concerned about people actually being safer rahter than feeling safer. With feeling safter being such a subjective measure it can be too easily manipulated.
You have no idea what a compound bow is do you? Or what it is capable of? "A large peice of wood" Indeed!
Suicide by bow? The logistics are pretty tricky but I shall ask at the club tomorrow!
But then we are back to caring not about people dying but how they die.Because guns are better at doing the job? Doesn't stop the bow being a "tool designed for killing that has no use other than recreation in a civilised society".
As the incidence of it was incredibly small prior to the handgun ban and fathers are still killing their wife and kids without firearms I am struggling to see what impact that ban has had. Or again does it actually matter how someone kills their wife and kids or is the important thing that they kill their wife and kids?
I thought I would see what things were like from your side of the fence.
And you talk about contrived to me.
So in your scenario we need a kid that wants to shoot up his school. That also happens to have a parent that has a firearm. That also happens to have poor security on said firearms. You have kids, do you leave dangerous things lying around the house where they can easily get hold of them? You seem to think it is so hard to get a gun and yet kids are still getting hold of guns and shooting each other. Or passers by. It seems that when you are intending to do something illegal like murder you aren't overly bothered about using something illegal to do it with.
Bit defensive there and probably committing a whole number of your fallacies the spotlight one jumps out at a glance.
But I was just asking out curiosity.
But in both cases stolen legal firearms and ones obtained by lying on the forms would not have been in circulation had it not been legal to sell firearms or own them.
That says he shot someone with a semi auto hand gun
Two points... Read carefully...
1) Do you think, if a father decides to kill his family, they are at greater risk if he is (a) armed with a shoelace, (b) a knife, (c) a gun... In which scenario do you perceive the victims stand a greater chance of survival?
I know you'll have to say no, that it makes no difference. But I suspect you know really, that a gun makes the job so much quicker and easier, is far more effective at killing, it must give the victims so much less of a chance, in more than one way...
And then add to this, without a gun, the individual actually has to get their hands dirty in a far more physical attack, which may either fail, or put them off completely.
In short, a gun makes their odds of survival far lower...
2) I've said this about half a dozen times now. Any stats being quoted from the 90s are not pertinent to this post, unless we agree that infact we're not doing as the OP suggested, where we could feasibly see a large per head count in firearms, instead of the 0.1% being banded around as a valid example.
Now, if we're going to change the goalposts and suggest that infact only a few thousand folks are going to own a weapon, then let's start a whole new thread
Do you really not think there is a connection between children going into their schools with guns to shoot as many people as they can, and how easy their access is to guns? You really can't see a connection there?And you talk about contrived to me.
The more guns in households, the more likely the two are to bump into each other. And then you're putting your faith in a key, and a lock on a gun cubpoard?
Why risk it? Take up paint ball instead...
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
He won't answer the question. Don't you see? They just can't as there's no-where for them to go, but also they can't admit they can't .. so the only way forwards is tangent ..
You won't get a straight answer
watch if you dont believe me .... ..Yes dad. Sorry dad.
If the person is determined to do it, I don't think the chances of survival change significantly. A firearm however is quicker and more efficient. And why the shoelace? Why lessen your argument by putting in such ridiculous scenarios? It is why I cannot take this debate seriously anymore. It must have upset you terribly when I didn't fit your profile of childless.
Was I predictable enough in reply to your (once again) contrived situation?
Or they can get an illegal gun or use a shotgun or a rifle. But we have to ignore the availability of illegal firearms and the easy availability of rifles and shotguns otherwise it sort of makes you point somewhat moot...
He won't answer the question. Don't you see? They just can't as there's no-where for them to go, but also they can't admit they can't .. so the only way forwards is tangent ..
You won't get a straight answer
Back to you usual ******** I see. Oh well, at least you tried. Briefly. Oh so very briefly.
Any benefit automatically rules out a 'perceived' - a perceived threat is not a real one, it's just a perception that an individual or a society holds, it doesn't become a real threat unless until it becomes statistically viable.
Many people perceive risks in things that most of the rest of us don't, like the destruction of family values by allowing gay marriage, but that percieved risk does not run roughshod over the rights of gay people to get married if they wish.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
#559
That was the problem.
I spent a while on that post. I was pleased when it was done it sounded pretty good I thought ... And you completely ignored it. Like it didn't exist. At which point I subconsciously thought 'whats the point if they just ignore my piece-d'resistance??'
#559 was a blimin' masterpeice I tells ya. And remains unanswered
So, indeed, back to the ******** .. if you're gonna ignore when I produce something half-reasonable .. 
Last edited:
LOL!
The death by shoelace was introduced by DolphIf the person is determined to do it, I don't think the chances of survival change significantly. A firearm however is quicker and more efficient. And why the shoelace? Why lessen your argument by putting in such ridiculous scenarios? It is why I cannot take this debate seriously anymore. It must have upset you terribly when I didn't fit your profile of childless.
So you don't perceive a significant difference in attempting to stab six people, and holding a gun to six people? You don't see maybe in this scenario playing out a few times, the dice falling significantly differently? Interesting...
You don't think someone might be more willing to shoot six people at a distance rather than struggle person to person, while repeatedly trying to thrust a blade into them. being scratched and covered in blood?
Picture yourself as a wife in a house, with your husband going jihad. Would you rather him have a gun or a knife? In which scenario would you stand more of a chance? Add some teenage kids into that mix as well. In which scenario might some be able to run away?
Or another example - in a slightly different scenario - had the Columbine shooters actually be armed with knives (or shoelaces) do you think it might have played out differently? There's a reason why they took guns, because they would make them more successful.
So , why arm the public to carry out murder all the more easily? Because unfortunately people do at times murder... Why make it easier for them?
You'll continue to dodge the obvious answer here I'm sure
But for the rest of us we don't want to risk making murder easier...You've already chosen to ignore that...
Take your austrasised loner 15yr old with the urge to kill... Do you want to give him easy access to weapons (in his or a relatives house), or harder access? And yes, of course it would be far harder to go via the illegal route... Most kids - especially your typical loner - wouldn't have the first clue where to go, yet alone be taken seriously enough to get one.
Rifles and shotguns - You're again falling to the 0.1% statistic issue. We're talking about the risk of introducing far more guns into the UK, akin to our european neighbours or God forbid the US. I'd also suggest it's also rather hard to get into school unnoticed with a shotgun. And also harder to cause to much carnage when you have to stop after every two shots...
Bit defensive there and probably committing a whole number of your fallacies the spotlight one jumps out at a glance.
But I was just asking out curiosity.
But in both cases stolen legal firearms and ones obtained by lying on the forms would not have been in circulation had it not been legal to sell firearms or own them.
That says he shot someone with a semi auto hand gun
He was a convicted felon, ergo could not have legally held the firearm used.
Up high.. Down low... Too slow!
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=16215531&postcount=568
But if the firearm legally belonged to someone (as opposed to being illegally brought in/modified/created) he wouldn't have gotten hold of it had they been illegal.
When the gun laws are what they are (rightly or wrongly) because of these very rare massacres they are pretty much the one thing yuou should be arguing on.
That is if you're actually talking about/want change and not just pointless idealism on the internet.