Ruger Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Indeed, as I said one of the reasons, if you researched or watched the video you'd understand that's exactly what thier gun ownership laws are and have been there for. Huh?. It is 'legal' most places, but what I enjoy is correcting some of these misconceptions about 'weapons' that so many people especially in Britain seem to have. What's friustrating though is that these are the same misconceptions and stupid ideas that are continuing to get people killed in mass shootings particulalry across the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Ps, Luxembourg and Norway were also neatral, didnt stop them invading though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I feel scared to continue this conversation, knowing you could legally own a shotgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 And I am deeply concerned that you could run me down with your car. Pathetic opt-out my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Don't have a car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Ok, I'm deeply concerned that you may club me to death with your keyboard or mobile device, yeah deny that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazze Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 pft - I write to you from a macbook, ain't no way this beautiful mobile device is doing any clubbing-to-death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Did gun controls after Dunblane stop gun crime? No. Did gun controls after Hungerford stop gun crime? No. Did gun controls stop Raoul Moat killing people with a gun? No. Did gun controls prevent that lad being shot in Liverpool a couple of years back? No. Did gun controls prevent that taxi driver in Yorkshire (at least I think it was Yorkshire) a couple of years ago, going on a shooting spree? No. Did gun controls prevent that little girl getting shot last week? No. All extreme gun controls do is stop law abiding citizens owning guns (including the UK Olympic Target shooting team, who have to practice abroad because of restrictive gun laws in the UK). Those who live outside the law have no problems getting hold of, and using firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted April 4, 2012 Author Share Posted April 4, 2012 So OK, we all walk around with guns to protect ourselves from the above very rare events, which is a very very small number of killings spread over a long long time. What do you think would happen? Seriously? I would think that as the statistics show from America there would be far more deaths. The chances of being killed in one of the examples above are about zero. You have more chance of being killed by falling in the street and banging your head. I think the wish to own a gun for self protection should be looked upon like the wish to be elected as a politition............................ The wish should immediately bar you from being allowed to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 BR, clearly you have got the wrong idea. No ones saying to do that HERE. Not worth the associated risks, but if you think its wrong to for law abiding citizens to obtain CCW permits, or that free fire zones are a good idea in the US then your living in a dream world and clearly ignorant of all the historic examples to prove its a shit idea. If you go back and look that's where this started, who's said to copy the same system here?. Er, no-one. The only thing said referring to this part of the world is that gun control continues to fail with regard to criminals. The two latest examples being the Russian mowed down with an SMG in London and the nut job shooter in Toulouse. Nutters don’t need legally held firearms and to not monitor or take heed to concerns raised about legally held firearm owners makes a total mockery of the registration system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 ok Ruger. You think if good citizens were allowed to legally carry guns around, crime would go down because the criminals would be afraid to use their illegal guns for fear of being shot by a good upstanding member of the community. But at what point does a person become a criminal? Yup, after they have committed a crime. Up to that point they must be a good citizen, yes? So under your rules they would be allowed to carry a gun, because they are not a criminal..Yet! So in effect, every new criminal would be armed- up to the point when they get caught for the first time. Nop, I can't see why you think more guns = less gun crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I am not advocating every man and his dog is allowed to carry a gun. I am saying that law abiding citizens who have legitimate reasons to own a gun, i.e. sportsman, collectors, etc who have been vetted and checked, should be allowed to own firearms. But these are the sort of people who have been penalised by knee-jerk legislation, who hasnt stopped the sort of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I am not advocating every man and his dog is allowed to carry a gun. I am saying that law abiding citizens who have legitimate reasons to own a gun, i.e. sportsman, collectors, etc who have been vetted and checked, should be allowed to own firearms. But these are the sort of people who have been penalised by knee-jerk legislation, who hasnt stopped the sort of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. Do you think the vetted people should be allowed to carry the guns about on their person? Or do you mean keep them in a secure shooting range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I am not advocating every man and his dog is allowed to carry a gun. I am saying that law abiding citizens who have legitimate reasons to own a gun, i.e. sportsman, collectors, etc who have been vetted and checked, should be allowed to own firearms. But these are the sort of people who have been penalised by knee-jerk legislation, who hasnt stopped the sort of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. Do you think the vetted people should be allowed to carry the guns about on their person? Or do you mean keep them in a secure shooting range? Of course at secure shooting ranges. If the firearms are to be transported for legitimate reasons (i.e. shooting competions at licensed ranges) it should be in the correct manner. I am not advocating people wandering the streets armed to the teeth, because they fancy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Of course at secure shooting ranges. If the firearms are to be transported for legitimate reasons (i.e. shooting competions at licensed ranges) it should be in the correct manner. I am not advocating people wandering the streets armed to the teeth, because they fancy it. Yup. I don't see any problem with that personally. But I get the impression some people do want to walk about with pistols in their pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.