bostonmick Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) So now kids are all a bunch of morons who can't tell right from wrong. I wonder if that might be the fault of parents or maybe there is a new mysterious disease affecting todays kids and clouding their judgement. I say that nothing has changed only people's perceptions, if kids were to be trusted in those days to be around guns safely and were educated I don't see a problem now. Coming back full circle to the documentary, those American kids responsibly and maturely use those shotguns. This is in 2014, not 30 years ago, so maybe your assumption that: "nowadays kids can't be trusted" is wrong. yes I can only agree with you the children were very responsible in the manner of which they used the gun to kill his sister.where were the responsible caring parents while this was going on.the other case of the girl who survived her parents lost custody of her do you suppose that was down to them being over cautious as well.the children aren't morons as you put it but there are a lot of parents out there who are not really up to the job.and some of the proof of this with guns is laying in various cemetery's around the world.but then again your the guy who thinks it should be ok to keep a assault type weapon to ward off the hoards of murderous gangs.my assumption was actually that adults could not be trusted to supervise the children correctly.it could lead to and I know it is a million to one shot but a child picking up a loaded weapon and killing another child while the parents are busy not looking after the children.but wait is that not what actually happened. oh and I wish it was only thirty years ago. Edited March 3, 2014 by bostonmick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 but then again your the guy who thinks it should be ok to keep a assault type weapon to ward off the hoards of murderous gangs. There you go using that favourite words of the anti-gunners. By the way I expect you next time someone kills someone with a hammer for you to use the words: Assault hammer. I mean we have to keep up the rethoric eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 There you go using that favourite words of the anti-gunners. By the way I expect you next time someone kills someone with a hammer for you to use the words: Assault hammer. I mean we have to keep up the rethoric eh? ( i do not believe in any gun control)your words I believe.now that is food for the anti gun lobby and the Lac.i take it that you also believe that the only barrier that would exist to stop you owning your chosen weapon would be financial.but then again I suppose there is always the good old easy terms.perhaps you could enlighten us as to how many should die before you would consider acceptance of any level of regulation interfering with your pleasure or is there no number high enough.i would also point out that even in war zones rules and regulations exist.you know rules of engagement.yet in the domestic life of the population you believe there should be no rules.i believe that in this country we have the correct balance when it comes to licensing shotguns.the only thing lacking in some areas is the time it can take.as for fac issue I believe there is still room for some improvement on these but that is for another day and another thread.the Americans could learn from other nations and I include the UK in that list.it is perfectly correct that parents and all adults should be responsible enough not to need legislation to tell them what common sense should but by the high number of incidents recorded each year it seems we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I can only quote the 600 deaths a week by firearms and say if that is responsible in action then I am happy to live in our society and not the one most of you seem to hold up as the grail of gun ownership.but I guess to some and clearly you this ia an acceptable price to pay. I thought you wanted to agree to disagree.clearly not. If in our country we don't need to own guns for self defence, why are our dear leaders protected by them via the armed police' protection team? Why can't they do without them? Oh, guns might work, where everything else fails... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 If in our country we don't need to own guns for self defence, why are our dear leaders protected by them via the armed police' protection team? Why can't they do without them? Oh, guns might work, where everything else fails... Can't remember the last time a protection office had to pull his firearm.but fear not neither you or I will ever be considered important enough to need any armed guards.i never said we lived in an equal society but it is a much safer one than our American cousins.some of that could be down to the fact you are not allowed to shoot people here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Can't remember the last time a protection office had to pull his firearm.but fear not neither you or I will ever be considered important enough to need any armed guards.i never said we lived in an equal society but it is a much safer one than our American cousins.some of that could be down to the fact you are not allowed to shoot people here. My point of arguement is that IMHO my life worths as much as theirs, so why can't i have the same rights? This situation seems to remind me like promoting prohibition while having champagne parties... The ideal world (gunwise) would be somewhere in the middle between the situation in the US and the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) My point of arguement is that IMHO my life worths as much as theirs, so why can't i have the same rights? This situation seems to remind me like promoting prohibition while having champagne parties... The ideal world (gunwise) would be somewhere in the middle between the situation in the US and the UK. I think that the politicians are part paranoid and part up their own ends with how important they are.but if you will go around dropping bombs on any country they choose at will for the oil.the last person to enter parliament with good intent was guy fawkes.I feel we live in one of the safest country's in the world if you look at the others that have guns for so called self defense they are a mess.current high profile case in south Africa.we have I believe what is about the right balance. I would not want to live where we have to carry a gun for self defense.that really is a society gone wrong.atb Edited March 4, 2014 by bostonmick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallshort Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 My point of arguement is that IMHO my life worths as much as theirs, so why can't i have the same rights? This situation seems to remind me like promoting prohibition while having champagne parties... The ideal world (gunwise) would be somewhere in the middle between the situation in the US and the UK. Yeah and how many terrorist groups see you as a target Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Yeah and how many terrorist groups see you as a target Not many, but my point wasn't that. It's about they force me not to do something what they are doing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not many, but my point wasn't that. It's about they force me not to do something what they are doing... you cant be forced not to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 you cant be forced not to do something. Keeping handguns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallshort Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not many, but my point wasn't that. It's about they force me not to do something what they are doing... No its about proportion. Top MPs in this country need armed guards normal people dont simple. You dont need a hand gun to protect yourself they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Keeping handguns? no you are prevented from keeping handguns.you are forced to pay taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I think that the politicians are part paranoid and part up their own ends with how important they are.but if you will go around dropping bombs on any country they choose at will for the oil.the last person to enter parliament with good intent was guy fawkes.I feel we live in one of the safest country's in the world if you look at the others that have guns for so called self defense they are a mess.current high profile case in south Africa.we have I believe what is about the right balance. I would not want to live where we have to carry a gun for self defense.that really is a society gone wrong.atb Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report. One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson. “If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 no you are prevented from keeping handguns.you are forced to pay taxes. no, i'm forced not to have them... Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report. One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons and also why the Swiss mentality cant be transposed to the current American reality is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes, says Max Flueckiger, the associations spokesperson. If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence, No nanny state there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 no, i'm forced not to have them... No nanny state there... In Switzerland people are required to hold a firearm and ammunition for the defends of the country not for personal self defends and they also undergo a yearly training/check.after a quick check of firearms regs throughout the world it would seem the countries with the right to arms for self defends have the highest death rates.when a certificate holder goes to purchase a gun in our country we are liable to be asked what we are going to shoot so that the different suitable models can be considered.however in the states as the gun dealer said how do you all protect yourselves.well the answer is simple we are not brought up in a society where fear is lnstalled from a very early age.could lead to slight paranoia.figures for gun crime are not relevant in this post as it was centred around children and guns in America.children can and should be taught about gun safety from a young age but if the adults doing the teaching are not up to the job then that is where the problem lay.america certainly has what can only be described as some of the most relaxed regulations in the world relating to firearms and also boast some of the highest figure for firearm related deaths.there has to be a message in there somewhere.unless of course you do not wish to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 No nanny state there... Men between the age of 20-30 are required to hold the weapons by the state.and you must attend yearly training a little like being in our reservists so not for personal protection.guns for sport are encouraged by the state and they even stage events.this is a responsible caring society a far cry from the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoggysreels Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Out of curiosity only! .... why is a foreign nations gun policy that is legally endorsed by their politically elected representatives of the slightest interest to UK nationals .. Just interested to know ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Out of curiosity only! .... why is a foreign nations gun policy that is legally endorsed by their politically elected representatives of the slightest interest to UK nationals .. Just interested to know ... Its an age old thing as with anything in life there are those that will cherry pick the good bits from elsewhere.and gloss over the bad.also it is the way of most pw threads.atb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Men between the age of 20-30 are required to hold the weapons by the state.and you must attend yearly training a little like being in our reservists so not for personal protection. It is for personal protection. Their collective personal protection of the state from any invading army. You also forgot to mention Czech Republic or Saudi Arabia all countries who allow conceal carry and who have very low crime, even lower than UK, but it's okay to cherry pick on only providing an American model to justify gun-control without mentioning these other countries apparently. You also have to look where the gun crime is happening in America. IN the places with the strictest gun control. Same for Britain, handguns were banned armed crime actually jumped through the roof. It's very weird, I regularly challenge anti-gunners on different anti sites but I find it strange when I have to do it on a shooting forum. Somethign very scary about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is for personal protection. Their collective personal protection of the state from any invading army. You also forgot to mention Czech Republic or Saudi Arabia all countries who allow conceal carry and who have very low crime, even lower than UK, but it's okay to cherry pick on only providing an American model to justify gun-control without mentioning these other countries apparently. You also have to look where the gun crime is happening in America. IN the places with the strictest gun control. Same for Britain, handguns were banned armed crime actually jumped through the roof. It's very weird, I regularly challenge anti-gunners on different anti sites but I find it strange when I have to do it on a shooting forum. Somethign very scary about that. Well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is for personal protection. Their collective personal protection of the state from any invading army. You also forgot to mention Czech Republic or Saudi Arabia all countries who allow conceal carry and who have very low crime, even lower than UK, but it's okay to cherry pick on only providing an American model to justify gun-control without mentioning these other countries apparently. You also have to look where the gun crime is happening in America. IN the places with the strictest gun control. Same for Britain, handguns were banned armed crime actually jumped through the roof. It's very weird, I regularly challenge anti-gunners on different anti sites but I find it strange when I have to do it on a shooting forum. Somethign very scary about that. I take it then after the age of thirty men in Switzerland do not need to protect themselves.also this is about the USA I realise you get incidents in other countries none are immune.legislation or not.the simple point is that the current system of control is not really successful in the states and the proof is in the number of people getting hurt.i am all for private ownership of firearm I have plenty and enjoy using them.however my opinion of the American way is not high as we all learn from example and there does seem to be a few to many bad incidents coming from America.it would be interesting to have the figures of injury/death from accidental shootings.there are fifteen thousand children hurt every year and eight a day die.are they all accidents if so why.parental unsupervision maybe. It is not worrying that someone on a shooting forum may believe that in some circumstances some control needs to be in place where common sense is lacking.i am sure that most American parents are caring and responsible but it is obvious there are those who are not.and its always someone else who will pay the price.i think if you check the home office figures firearm related crime has actually fallen in this country over the past few years.the only thing I am anti about is children paying the price for adults stupidity.atb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 i think if you check the home office figures firearm related crime has actually fallen in this country over the past few years.the only thing I am anti about is children paying the price for adults stupidity.atb The gun crime figures have fallen compared to 1997 levels but if you take a year in the UK say 1985, where pretty much all types of guns were legal those years are stilll lower in crime than they are now, with many guns restrictions in place. Just because I don't agree with any gun laws doesn't mean I want to see kids getting hurt. I think through training, education and common sense kids in every country not just America or Britain can be taught responsible firearm safety. Unfortunately we also have to accept the sad fact that accidents are going to happen no matter what and we shouldn't be passing legislation infringing on people's rights due to this. 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.