Steppenwolf Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 This is the right attitude my firend! Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchill Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 What annoys me about the media, is all it takes is a few ill educated statistics about gun related deaths and it sparks a huge debate, "ohh 5000 people were killed by guns this year" (lets ban guns) they don't mention that 100's of thousands are killed each year by car accidents, ooohh lets ban cars, knifes, drugs, etc, It's not the implements that kill its people that kill, Ohh apart from the drugs they probably accounted for a lot of the car accidents as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Flawed logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Some off the attitudes on here scare the hell out off me. Every 5 years at renewal time i might moan about gettin paperwork and photo's signed But i'm also quite relieved that i do have to jump throu so many hoops and that just anyone can't own a firearm that has no need for 1. Yes some off the restrictions and all this deeming ground suitable for a calibre is a lot of nonsense BUT the simple fact is we don't thankfully have a lot off gun crime or shootings and i am happy to jump few a few hoops and keep guns securly locked up if it helps to keeps us that way.On the off topic bit there's a couple of lengthy debates about dangerous dogs and dog attacks, some off these ****wits that use and abuse dogs to scare people imagine if they had access to firearms. It does not bear thinking about. Guns themselves aren't dangerous it's the people behind them so how anyone can be aggainst some sort of check on the people buying/owning them is crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Some off the attitudes on here scare the hell out off me. Every 5 years at renewal time i might moan about gettin paperwork and photo's signed But i'm also quite relieved that i do have to jump throu so many hoops and that just anyone can't own a firearm that has no need for 1. Yes some off the restrictions and all this deeming ground suitable for a calibre is a lot of nonsense BUT the simple fact is we don't thankfully have a lot off gun crime or shootings and i am happy to jump few a few hoops and keep guns securly locked up if it helps to keeps us that way.On the off topic bit there's a couple of lengthy debates about dangerous dogs and dog attacks, some off these f ***wits that use and abuse dogs to scare people imagine if they had access to firearms. It does not bear thinking about. Guns themselves aren't dangerous it's the people behind them so how anyone can be aggainst some sort of check on the people buying/owning them is crazy My thoughts exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Guns themselves aren't dangerous it's the people behind them so how anyone can be aggainst some sort of check on the people buying/owning them is crazy But there is 'some sort of check' on the people buying them isn't there? Those people who buy from authourised/legitimate dealers have to submit to background checks don't they? Where it all turns to **** is when private owners are allowed to sell to other individuals,where no such checks are required. Mental health funding in America has been severely cut I believe,and a lack of an equivalent NHS like system doesn't exist,thereby allowing many people with mental health issues to go undetected and untreated. Saying all that,background checks nor mental health screening would have prevented the latest school shooting in America,as the culprit had no firearms of his own;he used his Mothers.Securely stored firearms however,or in fact the lack of it,may have played a role. When we sell a high-powered rifle from our cabinet to another licensed firearms owner with the authorisation to posess,what background checks do we undertake? None.The authority to posess(in our case a firearms certificate with the relevant slot)is no indication as to the holders current mental health ,as has been proved at Hungerford,Dunblane,West Cumbria and Durham. Our licensing system has allowed firearms not generally available to the general public,to be made available to people with severe sociapathic problems.Not easy is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) On the off topic bit there's a couple of lengthy debates about dangerous dogs and dog attacks, some off these f ***wits that use and abuse dogs to scare people imagine if they had access to firearms. It does not bear thinking about. Guns themselves aren't dangerous it's the people behind them so how anyone can be aggainst some sort of check on the people buying/owning them is crazy Criminals can already have access to firearms, just because handguns and centrefire rifles might be banned or that they have a criminal record doesn't actually stop them getting guns and weapons. This is what the Handgun Ban and centrefire ban was all about, did it stop crminal shooting? NO Shooting crime went up while it surely stopped us innocently firing some shots into bits of paper. Edited March 30, 2013 by Steppenwolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) But that just it scully it's not a perfect world or a perfect licensing system in the uk althou it's not that far away. And to be honest the system is quite good i think more off the problems come from local forces intereptation of the laws and them making them up. But unfortunately there will always be the chance that 1 day a normal sane person could be pushed over the edge, but u could argue that due to uk licensing that's why there only has been a tragic handful off incidents in the uk If a stranger came to buy a gun i had advertised all u can really do is check they have the relevant tickets and spaces and hope that the police have done there job properly and nothing has changed, if i knew a person who wanted to buy a gun of me and i didn't think they were a fit and proper person (in my personal opinion) i would not sell them it even thou they may have all the paperwork for it I find it impossible to see how the american system or lack of 1 could be looked on as a positive thing. I understand why some people are angry about losing there handguns, and if legally held guns had anything to do with gun crime there would be no hand guns used in crime anymore but we all know that is not the case PS scully just reread ur post i know checks made in uk was refering to usa or lessening checks here Edited March 30, 2013 by scotslad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Our licensing system has allowed firearms not generally available to the general public,to be made available to people with severe sociapathic problems.Not easy is it? This is what I am trying to get at, it is obvious from what has happened in Britain during the last 20 years that police don't really know how to enforce the licencing system since they allowed a guy who had police called to his adress FOUR times and who had guns confiscated to get his guns back. I don't know but when granting a certificate there is such a thing as deemed suitable to be entrusted with firearms without danger to the public. Well I don't think you can say that in Atherton's case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 "I find it impossible to see how the american system or lack of 1 could be looked on as a positive thing." The lack of any system is due to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. "A well regulated militia being neccessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say anything about a licencing system, it's about recognizing the liberty that people are to be trusted with weapons without making them go through any hoops to get them because the criminal/mental guy can always bypass this system so all it does is leave us at the ercy of dangerous individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Someone famous (not sure who but i'm sure someone will inform me) once said about the palestian/israel conflict/tension " that until they love there kids more than they hate us there will never be peace" i know it is a bit extreme to compare the 2 together but untill americans love there childern more than the right to own guns they will continue to have tragic events all to regularly. I don't believe arming everyone s the best way to prevent crime, if u were mistaken and pull the trigger an apology afterwards doesn't really help I honestly can see no reason why i'd want to own a semi or automatic weapon or a .50cal, despite being brought up with guns all my life and owning a few i'm just not really into them, just tools to do a job, that's all they are. They banned fully auto weapons in aussie a few years previous to when i was there (98)and a few farmers i worked for moaned about getting there AK's taken away, but all they ever used them for was demolishing old cars and stuff pretending they were in the movies, usually while having a barbie and a few cold ones. Not really a big price to pay for potetailly stopping a future massacre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Not really a big price to pay for potetailly stopping a future massacre. Banning semi-auto full-bore rifles did not stop the cumbria shootings. Following the logic of banning firearms that could be used in a similar shooting would mean banning .22 rifles and shotguns. Edited March 30, 2013 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted March 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Someone famous (not sure who but i'm sure someone will inform me) once said about the palestian/israel conflict/tension " that until they love there kids more than they hate us there will never be peace" i know it is a bit extreme to compare the 2 together but untill americans love there childern more than the right to own guns they will continue to have tragic events all to regularly. I don't believe arming everyone s the best way to prevent crime, if u were mistaken and pull the trigger an apology afterwards doesn't really help I honestly can see no reason why i'd want to own a semi or automatic weapon or a .50cal, despite being brought up with guns all my life and owning a few i'm just not really into them, just tools to do a job, that's all they are. They banned fully auto weapons in aussie a few years previous to when i was there (98)and a few farmers i worked for moaned about getting there AK's taken away, but all they ever used them for was demolishing old cars and stuff pretending they were in the movies, usually while having a barbie and a few cold ones. Not really a big price to pay for potetailly stopping a future massacre]/b] No, they banned just about every semi-automatic long arm in 96, including .22's and shotguns, not just scary looking military style rifles. They also banned pump shotguns. In other words, about 90% of all guns in Britain are banned in Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) I don't believe arming everyone s the best way to prevent crime, Neither do I....so long as EVERYONE is disarmed.But that aint gonna happen is it? So what do you suggest? And things aren't getting better either,are they?When I was a lot younger and it was perfectly legal for civilians with the authorised certificate to own and shoot semi-automatic rifles as well as handguns,I never saw any armed Police at all.Now,even though semi-automatic rifles and handguns are banned,to see Police armed with not only handguns but semi-automatic CF carbines is nothing out of the ordinary.To suggest this is the result of a terrorist threat doesn't cut it either,as this is in my own home town.Why is this? Edited March 30, 2013 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 They banned fully auto weapons in aussie a few years previous to when i was there (98)and a few farmers i worked for moaned about getting there AK's taken away, but all they ever used them for was demolishing old cars and stuff pretending they were in the movies, usually while having a barbie and a few cold ones. Not really a big price to pay for potetailly stopping a future massacre Those who give up their liberty for a little safety will end up having neither. I think Benjamin Franklin said that. Why should those people be forced to give up those AK-47s if they enjoyed shooting them at old cars and were not hurting anyone? I find it more worrrying not when a massacre happens but when liberties are curtailed due to some pretty poor laws, you're not honoring any dead children by taking everyone's rights away no matter how you try to argue about it: "Oh but it's for the children." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Banning semi-auto full-bore rifles did not stop the cumbria shootings. Following the logic of banning firearms that could be used in a similar shooting would mean banning .22 rifles and shotguns. I know stupid logic eh? Sounds like something that The Gun Control Network would say. The funny thing when people say: "Oh American gun laws are too lax or some **** like that it's a bit like a Chinese person saying to a British person: Your free speech laws are a little bit too loose. You shouldn't be able to say some of those things, it might offend someone, the govenrment should be able to regulate that. Edited March 31, 2013 by Steppenwolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakari Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 The American's were quite justified in establishing the 2nd amendment and anyone who thinks they no longer need it are mistaken. They fought hard for their freedoms and I personally believe they should have onto all of them as hard as they can. Here's proof: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikingRebel Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 I would guess there are parents of lots of children who hope not. Clearly the gun laws in their present state are not working very well. How so? Contrary to the way our media portrays America, violent crime has actually been plummeting across the US for the past decade or so, whilst gun ownership continues to rise. Clearly whatever they are doing over there, is working. Britain on the other hand, what has been the outcome of banning handguns? Oh yeah thats right, a 3000% increase in handgun crime, overall violent crime up and generally a less safe, less free, more miserable society than before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 No gun laws are 100% are they, but when was the last time the local nut job went ans slaughtered loads of children with automatic assault rifles etc in this country ?. If pro gun means they want the right to be able to purchase any gun from a pistol to a 50 cal then I dont agree with it. Then I'm happy to consider my self pro gun. All rights are subject to reasonable controls as to who, when and how, etc, they may be exercised and I think that everyone accepts that. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakari Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the populace has the RIGHT to bear arms....... ANY arms they wish & without control. The point of that is for them to be able to protect themselves from not only criminals but also their own Government. That's why it's so vital for them to preserve the 2nd exactly as it is. As for the crime/school attacks issue, as I see it, the answer is to protect the precious & vulnerable against the bad guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the populace has the RIGHT to bear arms....... ANY arms they wish & without control. The point of that is for them to be able to protect themselves from not only criminals but also their own Government. That's why it's so vital for them to preserve the 2nd exactly as it is. People talk about gun controls in America as they are all the same. Like the UK has different regions were the gun laws are different America has states were the laws are different. There are already gun controls in American states magazine capacity limits registration and background checks for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 People talk about gun controls in America as they are all the same. Like the UK has different regions were the gun laws are different America has states were the laws are different. There are already gun controls in American states magazine capacity limits registration and background checks for example. This is very true and is the thing very often glossed over by people wanting to further a particular agenda. There are some things which are actually easier to own here than in the US. Sound moderators being a good case in point. Also, you must be 21 in order to purchase a handgun yet you can purchase one here (under one of the exemptions to the ban) at 18. You can't ship guns accross state lines for business puposes without being a federally licensed dealer yet you can ship them anywhere here. You haven't been able to buy guns mail order in the USA since 1968 but that wasn't made illegal here until much later. There are also a lot of people who are prohibited from possessing guns in the US and the categories of people who are is greater - it is illegal to possess a firearm if you have been dishonerably dischrged from the military, for instance. I may be wrong but I think that it was illegal for the mother of the kid who carried out the shooting at Sandy Hook to allow him access to firearms as he was known to be mentally ill. He certainly couln't have purchased anything from a dealer as he would not have passed the background check. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 The Bushmaster / Colt AR15 are already banned in the state of Conneticut / Sandy Hook So how did she (his mother) get hold of one and she was seen teaching him on a range? Ther's more to it than we will ever know about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) The Bushmaster / Colt AR15 are already banned in the state of Conneticut / Sandy Hook So how did she (his mother) get hold of one and she was seen teaching him on a range? Ther's more to it than we will ever know about. What do you mean by more than we ever know. ? Edited April 1, 2013 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Connecticut state law Sec. 53-202a Prohibits the ownership of the Bushmaster and AR15 What do you mean by more than we ever know. ? As said before not all states are the same whats OK in one state Is against the law in another. The State Coroner had applied some months before to have a law passed (1054?) to retain ALL files for child homisides to be retained by him. Edited April 1, 2013 by Paladin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.