| YES - without any controls apart from a simple licence | 14% | 14% - 27 | ||||
| YES - But only for people aged 25 or over plus licence | 14% | 14% - 27 | ||||
| YES - as above - but NO handguns/pistols | 1% | 1% - 2 | ||||
| YES - but NO machine guns | 9% | 9% - 17 | ||||
| NO - Ban the lot including farmers shotguns | 3% | 3% - 6 | ||||
| NO - keep the law as it is | 19% | 19% - 35 | ||||
| NO - Plus stricter laws in Europe | 13% | 13% - 24 | ||||
| USA - should have stricter gun laws | 10% | 10% - 19 | ||||
| USA - Gun laws fine as thay are | 8% | 8% - 16 | ||||
| USA - to ban all privately owned guns | 5% | 5% - 10 | ||||
| Total: 183 | ||||||
wrong again child. although, i am debating firearms with someone who isnt even old enough to hold oneBubbalo wrote:
M-16 originally fired in full auto.Parker wrote:
that fire in full auto (M4 full-M16 burst, just like the game),MAC-10 is a sub-machine gun, which is a different category.Parker wrote:
and the mac would be considered a machine pistol.....so they are all machine guns.
Last edited by Parker (2007-02-09 11:22:55)
Not so, the UK as an island has plenty of warning from a conventional invading army from say the east, one large continent europe and the British channel. Thats partially what stopped Hitler steaming rolling over us after the capture of France.Ridir wrote:
An invading army is trying to quickly advance across the countries of the U.K. and the U.S. In the U.K. the civilians run and hide and try not to get presecuted by the invading army. In the U.S. the invaders are bogged down in every major city and all across the South. Small militias have formed and are using their privately owned firearms to harrasse and distract the invading army.
It is how and why our right to bear arms was written. If you are foolhardy or strong enough to attack the U.S. and can defeat the the Military enough to push across the land your supply chains will always be under attack and your forces recieving daily harrassment.
Are you comparing apples and apples there pal?Vilham wrote:
Whats that lowing?? Homicide rate more than 6x higher?
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-09 14:43:55)
I will respond to this post, as soon as you address the post you quoted. Nothing of what you said is a coherent, response to what I said.Bubbalo wrote:
So, you actively search for people to rob you?lowing wrote:
Well I guess it is, if you are going to paint every scenario where you are huddled in the corner begging for your life while you get robbed. Try adding a pissed off home owner defending his family with a hand cannon into your mix of a nervous robber who is where he doesn't belong and not familiar with his surroundings.
And you never sleep?
Are you Superman or Wolverine?
DO you have stats to back this up?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Banning guns results in very few armed criminals.lowing wrote:
So you honestly believe you should have no right to self defense, no right to protect your hearth and home, no right to protect your family?? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, a thief has no desire to stare down the barrel of a shotgun either?commissargizz wrote:
And the people at the end of a criminals gun.
Why is defending yourselves so repulsive to liberals in every aspect of life, from defending your countries, to now, defending themselves as an individual?
It's a much better way to defend yourself that to allow both yourself and the criminals access to guns.
Before anyone tries to throw in the old 'but criminals will get guns anyway, so by denying yourself a gun you're vulnerable' arguement. It's a flawed arguement as the majority of guns in the hands of criminals were stolen off legal gun owners.
If we allowed legal gun ownership then the number of guns in criminal hands would skyrocket thulsy endandering ourselves, not defending ourselves.
You can't nuke out the countryside. There's enough guns in the US where if people really wanted to keep an insurgency, they could do it. Don't forget that the US is pretty damn big..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
One quick note for you. Japan tried that trick.Ridir wrote:
And on another note and something many people don't even think about.Stingray24 wrote:
*buzzer* Incorrect, try again.
At least here in the US we have the right to protect ourselvs in our homes at the very least. A doctor in the town I live in had a man break in his house in the middle of the night. The doctor grabbed his handgun, confronted the invader, ordered him to leave or he's shoot twice and then shot the criminal. He was not prosecuted. Neither will I if I fill a home invader with buckshot.
An invading army is trying to quickly advance across the countries of the U.K. and the U.S. In the U.K. the civilians run and hide and try not to get presecuted by the invading army. In the U.S. the invaders are bogged down in every major city and all across the South. Small militias have formed and are using their privately owned firearms to harrasse and distract the invading army.
It is how and why our right to bear arms was written. If you are foolhardy or strong enough to attack the U.S. and can defeat the the Military enough to push across the land your supply chains will always be under attack and your forces recieving daily harrassment.
This happened.
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/nuke.jpg
Try harder.
Does it matter? Look at these stats again:lowing wrote:
DO you have stats to back this up?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Banning guns results in very few armed criminals.
It's a much better way to defend yourself that to allow both yourself and the criminals access to guns.
Before anyone tries to throw in the old 'but criminals will get guns anyway, so by denying yourself a gun you're vulnerable' arguement. It's a flawed arguement as the majority of guns in the hands of criminals were stolen off legal gun owners.
If we allowed legal gun ownership then the number of guns in criminal hands would skyrocket thulsy endandering ourselves, not defending ourselves.
"WASHINGTON, D.C.--About 1.3 million U.S. residents faced anShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
Ooooh just found some fugures for the UK:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm
Number of deaths from firearms injury - United Kingdom, 1994 to 2003
Number
1994 341
1995 358
1996 254
1997 201
1998 203
1999 210
2000 204
2001 167
2002 169
2003 163
Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-02-09 17:35:30)
Do you really think a gun will protect YOU against the reality of crime(thugs,gangs,mafias)?SuperMike wrote:
Curious about our draconion gun laws here in England
it seems only criminals have guns - we have no defence ?
The majority of the gun related crimes have been by people with criminal history, also the percentage of the "victims" of these crimes also having criminal backgrounds is significant. In other words it is the criminals killing each other mostly. I have about as much problem with this as I do with Anna Nichol Smith ODing. Which is to say..................NONE.crimson_grunt wrote:
Does it matter? Look at these stats again:lowing wrote:
DO you have stats to back this up?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Banning guns results in very few armed criminals.
It's a much better way to defend yourself that to allow both yourself and the criminals access to guns.
Before anyone tries to throw in the old 'but criminals will get guns anyway, so by denying yourself a gun you're vulnerable' arguement. It's a flawed arguement as the majority of guns in the hands of criminals were stolen off legal gun owners.
If we allowed legal gun ownership then the number of guns in criminal hands would skyrocket thulsy endandering ourselves, not defending ourselves."WASHINGTON, D.C.--About 1.3 million U.S. residents faced anShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
Ooooh just found some fugures for the UK:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm
Number of deaths from firearms injury - United Kingdom, 1994 to 2003
Number
1994 341
1995 358
1996 254
1997 201
1998 203
1999 210
2000 204
2001 167
2002 169
2003 163
assailant armed with a firearm during 1993, the Department of Justice
announced today. Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent
crimes) the weapons were handguns. Seventy percent of the 24,526
murders in 1993 were committed with firearms, of which four out of five
were with a handgun. Recent studies indicate that the use of large caliber
semi-automatic handguns in homicides has been increasing.
During 1993 there were 4.4 million murders, rapes, robberies and
aggravated assaults in the United States--more than one-quarter involved
a gun. However, the report notes that most guns in the U.S. are not used
to commit crimes."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/guic.pr
To all the people saying the UK needs more guns why exactly do we need guns again? It looks like the US has more gun crime in a day than we have in years. I think guns being an offence and only armed responce units being allowed to have them is a better idea.
Then I beg for someone to answer me this. If the law abiding citizens turn over their guns, ( since they are registered) and the criminals probably will not be so accomidating to this new gun control measure, who is more powerful now? The law abiding citizen, or the criminal that now thinks it is Christmas everyday in all of these newly disarmed housholds?Bubbalo wrote:
But either way, it puts paid to the argument that if guns are illegal only criminals have guns: sure, but less criminals have guns.
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-09 22:53:21)
Sure can, any gun they KNOW ABOUT, I.E. registered. Criminals don't usually register their guns, so you are only disarming law abiding citizens and not the ones who need disarming.Bubbalo wrote:
For a time, the criminal. But consider also that as soon as guns are illegal police can confiscate any gun.
Too right, we dont want people slaughtering each other. Guns are for one thing only too many people forget that.ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
What's wrong with UK gun laws??
Does anyone remember he Dunblaine shootings that got the law changed?
A crazed scout master shot a load of primary school kids with a gun then shot himself.
Since then there have been NO gun massacres in schools.
We have a defence against guns we have armed response units, yes there is gun crime but it is very small.
remember what I said about getting real bubbalo? Time for another reality check.Bubbalo wrote:
Are illegal guns also invisible?
Yeah and you Europeans have reminded us of that all last century. How in the hell did you guys manage to kill so many of yourselves if nobody had a gun? This century is still young, I still have faith that you can not live in peace for the next 50 years.UNDIESRULES wrote:
Too right, we dont want people slaughtering each other. Guns are for one thing only too many people forget that.ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
What's wrong with UK gun laws??
Does anyone remember he Dunblaine shootings that got the law changed?
A crazed scout master shot a load of primary school kids with a gun then shot himself.
Since then there have been NO gun massacres in schools.
We have a defence against guns we have armed response units, yes there is gun crime but it is very small.
Well I dunno. If a guy held the gun up would they look at him funny and walk away? If he used it to shoot someone, would they ask him if he does magic? If it were sitting on their desk, would they ignore it?lowing wrote:
But to answer your smart ass question, YES, if the gun is not registered then it is "invisable" to the govt. now isn't it?
Once again bubbalo, try staying within the realms of reality for once.Bubbalo wrote:
Well I dunno. If a guy held the gun up would they look at him funny and walk away? If he used it to shoot someone, would they ask him if he does magic? If it were sitting on their desk, would they ignore it?lowing wrote:
But to answer your smart ass question, YES, if the gun is not registered then it is "invisable" to the govt. now isn't it?
Oh, and I said "invisible". "Invisable" isn't a word.
do i realy have to troll through tons of previous threads to find the links that show this? You have seen the evidence before when these kinds of threads have been before, unless somehow you missed them entirely. If however you go back 1-2 pages you will find that someone in this thread has already posted a link to the stats.lowing wrote:
Are you comparing apples and apples there pal?Vilham wrote:
Whats that lowing?? Homicide rate more than 6x higher?
Do you have stats to back this up?
Exactly. Thats what is good, if you want you can keep a .22 rifle or shotgun (of any type other than sawn off) for hunting it requires only a licence. The problem is city folks are unlikely to get one as its hard to believe someone in a city loves going to the country side. I agree with that though.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but I'd still like to see a 10 year old try to kill me without a gun. Suffice to say, guns make it too easy for people to kill other people and I would be glad to see the gun laws in the UK implemented here. Well, at least let people keep a rifle for hunting or something if they desired.
Last edited by Vilham (2007-02-10 03:33:23)
