1320Lichtie Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 5) The "guns are designed to kill" rhetoric.. No ^ thinks we are speaking about BB/Tattie guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 This thread is quite depressing. You have a number of people on the pro-gun side making solid arguments and a small number of people on the anti-gun side attempting to have a civilized disagreement with them. In between that you have a bunch of pseudo-comedians and wind-up merchants trying their darndest to come off as witty and biting with moronic retorts that would do nothing but discredit their own cause to any true neutral. There's been a lot of idiotic points raised by the roasters who fancy themselves comedians, I'm going to try and address all of them in as concise and clear a manner as I am capable of. You're clearly not capable of fully reading the comments you're replying to the majority of the time so I'll try and make it extra simple for you by numbering the points and separating them from the scary paragraphs above them: 1) Don't want to own and carry a gun? Don't! More liberal gun laws DO NOT force you to purchase or own a firearm or use one to defend yourself in situations that may call for it. You remain absolutely free to hand over your wallet, or let somebody or a group of people beat you or sexually assault you. That is totally up to you. 2) The murder rate of the US compared to the UK is frequently cited here, you should be aware of the fact that the UK stats DO NOT include murders that haven't resulted in a conviction (yes, that is seriously the case), nor do they include manslaughter as US murder rate figures include. Including these would, obviously, bump the UK murder rate up quite significantly. 3) The US is not the only country with a significantly more liberal set of gun laws than the UK, in fact the vast majority of countries around the world have significantly more liberal gun laws than the UK. Many of these countries ALSO have considerably lower rates of crime than the UK AND have lower murder rates (since murder is the only crime that seems to matter to many of the anti-gun nuts here). 4) People are frequently citing the fact that you CAN own a firearm in the UK, which is a blatant misrepresentation of the reality of gun laws in UK at present. It is EXTREMELY difficult to get a firearms license in the UK at present, even if you meet the strict criteria rejections can be quite common. The criteria itself of course excludes the vast majority of people from qualifying at the moment, in addition to this you CANNOT carry firearms and there is a TOTAL ban on handguns and various other types of firearm. 5) The "guns are designed to kill" rhetoric.. No, as has been said many times the purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. What a human happens to try and hit with those bullets is ENTIRELY ON THEM, not the gun. Guns have a number of recreational uses, but they don't really need any for people to justify having a right to own them. We don't live in a world where we are limited to purchasing and owning items of necessity, and yes, many other luxury items we are permitted to own can be used to hurt and even kill people just as a gun can. 6) "Less guns = less death".. No, again. This claim is not backed up by statistics at all, in fact it is totally refuted by them in many cases. If you were to say "less guns = less gun crime" you might have a little more of a leg to stand on there, however statistics can even refute this as since the harsher legislation brought in after Dunblane gun crime has actually RISEN in England and Wales and remained stagnant in Scotland. Generally though less guns would naturally result in less gun related injury and death, however this logic could be applied to cars or numerous other items. It also does not mean that gun crime will not be replaced by crime commited with other weapons such as knives, bats, bricks, bottles or even just plain old fists. 7) At the end of the day, statistics aren't really all that relevant (given the drastic variation in countries crime rates despite gun legislation and rate of development). Regardless of how conveniently this happens to pan out for the anti-gun nuts, it really comes down to basic ethics. You cannot justifiably strip law abiding citizens of the right to own firearms based on the fact that they POTENTIALLY could commit harm with that object, unless you apply that to all other objects capable of causing serious harm to others. I also noticed someone attacking a person for choosing to walk through bad neighborhoods at night, clearly implying the blame lay with the victim for being attacked, as opposed to the attackers. The victim it seems should have self-imposed a curfew on himself and made sure to limit where he was legally free to go to safer areas. Do you perchance criticize a rape victim for what they happened to be wearing, where/when they happened to be walking, what they happened to be drinking? Then don't do the same victim blaming crap on those who are victimized by other types of criminals. 9) As for the "what would you rather face" logic, I would definitely take being shot over being stabbed if forced to pick, personally. Ideally I wouldn't be attacked at all, or would be attacked by an unarmed, solitary man. However we don't live in an ideal world. Even if I was attacked and he happened to have a gun, I would at least be on a level playing field. As it stands the only chance I have as a law abiding citizen of being on a level playing field is if the criminal attacker happens to be the "honorable" sort who attacks alone and fights me with his bare hands. The power is in the hands of the attacker already, with the current system. 10) "School rampage more difficult without guns".. Is that so? Perhaps you should tell that to the families of the 20-30 murder victims of numerous mass knife/hammer/machete/farm tool attacks that have taken place around the world. It absolutely is relatively easy to murder 20+ people with a knife in a frenzied attack, many shootings have also resulted in several or no deaths and few injuries. The efficiency of these attacks is much more to do with the ruthlessness, planning and determination of the perpetrators than the weapons they use, as evidenced by the long list of mass murders that have taken place with aforementioned weapons. 11) There has been a lot of talk about how stricter legislation aimed at civilians results in criminals finding it harder to obtain firearms. Clearly you don't know much about smuggling in the UK, or guns themselves. Because I assure you guns could quite easily be smuggled into the UK in very, very large volumes if there were customers for them, do you think the people manning our borders just happen to let all that heroin, cocaine, cannabis and various other narcotics into the UK out of goodwill? The amount of cargo coming into UK docks each day is gargantuan, were those protecting the borders to do nothing but search every container that came through in A SINGLE DAY they would get through around 2% if they were highly efficient at it. They rely almost entirely on tip-offs, and if those don't come, the contraband almost certainly gets through. The fact is the majority of criminals here simply don't need guns, why would they when they know with almost a certainty that the people they're going to attack will be unarmed. But make no mistake, there are absolutely criminals with guns here who will use them if need presents itself. There are cities with gangs becoming increasinly more armed by the day. Now to my second point, I plead with you anti-gun nuts to YouTube videos on making your own firearms. I'm not talking about 3D printers here, I'm talking about manufacturing legitimate guns, semi-automatic, SMGs, extremely deadly firearms that can easily be constructed by a lone individual over time with dedication (and not as much as you would think). Anyway, those are my points and I truly tried to keep it as short as possible. I know for a fact you won't read this fully, so please don't quote snippets of it out of context and use it in some weak retort or attempt at ridiculing or discrediting my statements here (which of course you'll likely now certainly do because you have the "I'll do whatever someone tells me not to do" mentality of a child). I have reliable sources for those stats and I perhaps will post them if I believe people have read this comment fully, but it's painfully obvious from this thread that your attitude towards guns is so warped and hysterical that you will continue to vilify them and those who wish to own them perhaps indefinitely. All the stats in the world contradicting your claims and stances would not change your mind on this issue. I imagine you could even have your lived saved multiple times in a short period of time by guns and would still continue to call for people who merely want to own and carry a handgun for self-defense to be thrown in prison. It's almost like this anti-gun nut mentality has become some twisted part of British national pride. "Hey, America, our government doesn't let us makes it borderline impossible for us to own guns. How great are we, you suck, by the way!" If I had a gun I would have shot myself after about 3 sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If I had a gun I would have shot myself after about 3 sentences. Just use a knife/hammer/machete/farm tool Serge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Apologies for depressing DUFC1980 with our silly jokes. Please can we see your sources. I promise to be gentle and not to fact check them too hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Joseph Stalin Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/good-guy-with-a-gun-thwarts-robbery-at-texas-resta/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Joseph Stalin Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carrier-kills-restaurant-active-shooter-houston/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Joseph Stalin Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/245524-anti-gun-group-calls-murder-victims-sister-enlist-support-heres-told/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carrier-kills-restaurant-active-shooter-houston/ What a dreadful example. So because guns are easy to get and this one nutjob shooting had one, then it's a good idea to make them easy to get so that the nutjobs that can get them easily can be dealt with? Aye, top logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carrier-kills-restaurant-active-shooter-houston/ Aye, if only we made it easy to own handguns we too could have shoot outs in restaurants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Joseph Stalin Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Aye, if only we made it easy to own handguns we too could have shoot outs in restaurants. Aye it's much better that only the guy wanting to murder people has a gun eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Aye it's much better that only the guy wanting to murder people has a gun eh. Maybe if they weren't legal the attempted shooter wouldn't of had the gun in the 1st place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Aye it's much better that only the guy wanting to murder people has a gun eh. Looks like the guy was just an ordinary citizen who lost his temper and had a legally obtained hand gun in his car. In Britain he would probably have just shouted a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Guns are to knifes as a thermonuclear device is to a stick of dynamite. At the end of the day a knife can only amplify the intrinsic strength of the human muscle wielding it, honing that stength to the surface pressure at the point. A gun is completely decoupled fromt he physical strength of the person holding it, as long as they possess the strength to pull a trigger they can unleish a force far in excess of any knife, at far greater range than our knife holder with a far quicker repeat action rate. That's before you get into high power calibre weapons, hollow point bullets and the like. Quite simply, a man walking into a pub with a knife intent on cuasing damage will have a far smaller chance of inflicting it than a guy with a gun. In the first instance, all anyone has to do is stay out of arm's reach of the knife holder, in the second there is no such escape from a bullet. No system of regulation is perfect, there will always be some small slippage - someone will always have a gun somewhere, the answer is in tracking weapons (easier when there are far fewer of them) not in flooding the market with as many weapons as possible in the vain hope that if everyone is armed, criminals won't get far in a shooting spree - which ignores the fact that your geography teacher may not have been to the range all that often and may kill as many of his own pupils in cross fire with an assailant in a gun fight as the assailant himself. The more bullets flying around, the greater the chance of someone dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Guns are to knifes as a thermonuclear device is to a stick of dynamite.At the end of the day a knife can only amplify the intrinsic strength of the human muscle wielding it, honing that stength to the surface pressure at the point. A gun is completely decoupled fromt he physical strength of the person holding it, as long as they possess the strength to pull a trigger they can unleish a force far in excess of any knife, at far greater range than our knife holder with a far quicker repeat action rate. That's before you get into high power calibre weapons, hollow point bullets and the like.Quite simply, a man walking into a pub with a knife intent on cuasing damage will have a far smaller chance of inflicting it than a guy with a gun. In the first instance, all anyone has to do is stay out of arm's reach of the knife holder, in the second there is no such escape from a bullet.No system of regulation is perfect, there will always be some small slippage - someone will always have a gun somewhere, the answer is in tracking weapons (easier when there are far fewer of them) not in flooding the market with as many weapons as possible in the vain hope that if everyone is armed, criminals won't get far in a shooting spree - which ignores the fact that your geography teacher may not have been to the range all that often and may kill as many of his own pupils in cross fire with an assailant in a gun fight as the assailant himself. The more bullets flying around, the greater the chance of someone dying. Now that's a good post YJS. I give the UK a tremendous amount of stick about things but one thing it's got correct is it's attitude towards guns. Americas stuck in the past with it's gun culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Americas stuck in the past with it's gun culture. That's the 1791 constitution amendment for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I only use my Barrett M82 .50 cal for squirrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 "The gun is just a tool" argument is ridiculous. I tried to hammer a nail into my kitchen wall this morning and ended up blowing my face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 "The gun is just a tool" argument is ridiculous. I tried to hammer a nail into my kitchen wall this morning and ended up blowing my face off. That's even worse than the afternoon I spent sanding Clay Pigeons with a black and decker KA198 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 What a dreadful example. So because guns are easy to get and this one nutjob shooting had one, then it's a good idea to make them easy to get so that the nutjobs that can get them easily can be dealt with? Aye, top logic. It's also interesting to note that the "good guy" in this anecdote was an off duty law enforcement professional as opposed to an amateur vigilante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 That's the 1791 constitution amendment for ya.And 2 centuries of advancement in Musket making Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.