lol, I thought the same.You haven't exposed one of the mysteries of the universe there, I like wine, I'm all in favour of middle aged people being allowed to buy it.
Coincidence? Not really
Your views on gun laws in the UK
- Thread starter rz30
- Start date
I have no real desire to own a gun, I still think the ban on handguns is stupid.
Associate
Hey man you know I'm really okay
The gun in my hand will tell you the same...
The gun in my hand will tell you the same...
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 325
..if we had gun laws like in america ...uk would be doomed simple as that......only batman would able to save us then.
Soldato
I'm sure arming the general populace would help reduce violent crime. Perhaps in an alternate reality.
Or alternatively, in places where it has been done in this reality
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry
Still, never let reality get in the way of random supposition.
you are clearly insane, with all of the shootings that happen in the states the police need to all be armed it would be a nightmare. move there if you want to carry a gun to feel like a big man.
Or alternatively, in places where it has been done in this reality
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry
Still, never let reality get in the way of random supposition.
And never let someone tell you "facts" on something that seems so prone to national variations are relevant in another nation. Because it is not necessarily so.
There is no good reason to let the public have guns in this country that would outweigh the potential harm.
Man of Honour
CW permits are not compatible with UK culture or attitudes towards firearms.
No from me.
No from me.
Suspended
I see no problem with people being able to legally possess firearms for home defence, but I wouldn't want to see people being legally able to carry them in public. There's enough retards about to take a simple misunderstanding on the road, or bumped shoulder in a pub to a whole different dimension.
Those who would use firearms for crime already own them.
Those who would use firearms for crime already own them.
No to guns in the U.K. Even those who go shooting for sport should have there guns locked away at their club and not held on the persons premises.
That said, I see people driving 'lethal weapons' every day and I am amazed how they haven't killed themselves or worse, someone else. Equip them with guns as well? No thanks!
That said, I see people driving 'lethal weapons' every day and I am amazed how they haven't killed themselves or worse, someone else. Equip them with guns as well? No thanks!
I disagree, but you probably already know that. The gun ban hasn't actually saved a single life (see the murder stats before and after the gun ban and play spot the lack of correlation), at best it's shifted the few gun murders we had onto other forms.
The government should not be putting restrictions on things that have no benefit, and so far, no actual case as to why law abiding, trained citizens should be prevented from owning guns has been put forward. (Spotlight fallacies such as highlighting Dunblane and making an appeal to emotion don't count).
Unfortunately, spotlight fallacies do count when they involve right wing lunatic/fundamentalist/survivalists gunning down all and sundry every few years. Yes you can go on a rampage with a kitchen knife but you can't kill 50 odd people in the space of half an hour.
And what's wrong with appeals to emotion they seem to have had quite a profound effect on you in a few areas. If you want this kind of stuff just fly off to the states and join the Tea Party you'd fit in just fine.
Suspended
Except this argument holds no water. If a person is driven enough to carry out mass murder then nothing will stop them. This is no reason to deny everyone else the opportunity to properly protect their families in their own home.
Access to the means to effectively carry out a spree killing would greatly increase the potential of that spree killing.
If guns are readily available and are commonplace all that means is that you get an escalation of opportunity and risk.
If guns are difficult to obtain, it is more difficult to access the most obvious means with which to effectively carry out mass murder.
It is also far easier to stop or escape from someone who doesn't have a projectile weapon than one who does.
If everyone carried a gun as protection, then everyone is also carrying a gun with which to commit a potential crime. Would you rather be assaulted by someones fist, or their .44........
If people want to use guns recreationally then I see nothing wrong with that, there is no reason that gun-clubs cannot hold and secure all weapons onthe premises....there is no reason that guns need be kept in the home, except in specific circumstances.
Last edited:
Given that you can make a bomb with kitchen chemicals and nails, or simply chain the fire exits to a building shut and set the place on fire (among many other ways of killing large numbers of people if you are determined/insane enough), I'd beg to differ.
You can't make laws attacking the activities of the general population based on the activities of the very rare lunatic.
You also shouldn't make laws based on fallacies full stop.
Situation 1
Bloke walks into a community centre with a knife
Situation 2
Bloke walks into a community centre with a AK-74
Both have 5 mins to kill as many people as possible - who'd you reckon wins? My guess the 2nd chap doesn't have the ammunition or targets to last past 90 secs.
Strange how the people who are used to guns and the effects of them can see this ...
Both sound like the sort of situation where concealed carry, once the situation has started, is probably the best chance the people in the community centre have.
Just remember, in your world, only the bloke has the weapon...