[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;22321529]this isn't a failing of gun control, it's a failing of people control.
clearly an unwell man who was left to his own devices[/QUOTE]
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Fortunately people don't always get what they deserve.
Never have I been more appalled to see people proud they have few liberties.
I heard he was a taxi driver.
[img]http://strangeherring.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/travis-bickle.jpg[/img]
'Few liberties'.
I really hope your not trying to say that we're somehow an opposed people just cause our gun laws are strict.
Or maybe its the increase in CCTV that’s being largely rolled back by the new government?
Perhaps the digital economy bill?
if you want your government to be more powerful than the people they are suppose to serve, expect them not to serve you any longer.
We have elections for a reason.
to appease the lower classes while giving them nothing at the same time.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;22326315]Impossible! The UK has gun control!
:downs:[/QUOTE]
because if something might be illegal, it is impossible to get
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22331529]to appease the lower classes while giving them nothing at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Well of course, they need time to establish the new world order.
what new world order? aristocracies have ruled countries for eons.
So. Rifles or shotguns. What's next to be banned?
I understand guns at home is utterly retarded. But on a shoot/ at a range, if guns were only allowed in those situations, it might be OK. Australia allows pistols etc, but with UK-like licenses, and gun crime there doesn't seem to be a problem as much.
[QUOTE=BrQ;22331551]because if something might be illegal, it is impossible to get[/QUOTE]
Yeah, [b]and this is the fucking problem. If you are a law abiding citizen, you can not have a gun. If you are a criminal, HERES YOUR GUN. They arent going to listen to this law, criminals are armed, the government is armed. You are the helpless man in the middle with no weapons, getting fucked by criminals, and by the government.[/b]
A prohibition can not, and will not, ever work.
[QUOTE=lemongrapes;22331831]I understand guns at home is utterly retarded. But on a shoot/ at a range, if guns were only allowed in those situations, it might be OK. Australia allows pistols etc, but with UK-like licenses, and gun crime there doesn't seem to be a problem as much.[/QUOTE]
No you don't understand. You've obviously never even touched a gun let alone had one in your home.
They're steel tubes, they aren't enchanted fertility statues that will impregnate your mother.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22331337]if you want your government to be more powerful than the people they are suppose to serve, expect them not to serve you any longer.[/QUOTE]
You seem to think we're trapped in an Orwellian society. It's quite amazing how ill informed of anything, you actually are.
[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22321490]Let me guess: You own like 5 shotguns of the same model and you feel violated by discussions about banning guns?[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps he's just not an idiot and realizes that banning legal firearms does nothing to stop the use of illegal firearms?
It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;22332016]You seem to think we're trapped in an Orwellian society. It's quite amazing how ill informed of anything, you actually are.[/QUOTE]
its quite amazing to see anyone defending a government which limits any of their rights
[QUOTE=lemongrapes;22331831]I understand guns at home is utterly retarded. But on a shoot/ at a range, if guns were only allowed in those situations, it might be OK. Australia allows pistols etc, but with UK-like licenses, and gun crime there doesn't seem to be a problem as much.[/QUOTE]
Again, completely different country. I'll say the same thing I said in countless other gun control debate threads, what works in one country/society doesn't necessarily apply to another country.
As for Australia, armed and violent crimes have INCREASED since their gun control legislation of 1993 I believe it was.
South Africa, which has the second highest rate of armed and violent crimes, implemented a strict gun control as of 2000, and since then it has done NOTHING to stop armed crime. Infact, armed and violent crimes have only increased since then.
Once again, what applies to one country, does not necessarily apply to another.
[editline]10:16PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=David29;22329241]I acknowledge that and even considered it when I was making my post.
However, it makes sod all difference. Why? This image says it all:
[url]http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh wow, that image is from a totally unbiased site. :downs:
It's a hopped up image, where is South Africa on that chart? Or perhaps they left it off because they don't want to acknowledge that ridiculous rates of firearm related deaths are happening in a country with gun control.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22332059]its quite amazing to see anyone defending a government which limits any of their rights[/QUOTE]
It's quite amazing to see someone attacking a system that seems to protect its people much better.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22332059]its quite amazing to see anyone defending a government which limits any of their rights[/QUOTE]
English Law and Scottish Law do not talk about rights. Our Laws exist to restrict any actions that are "deemed illegal for the common good". Certain firearms fall into this. Owning a firearm is [I]not[/I] illegal. Only certain types are restricted. I may be jumping to conclusions here, which doesn't really matter, as my point will still stand, but I get the impression you're from the US, and as such seem to think that because your country's citizens have the right to bare arms, then every other country should aswell. It doesn't work that way. The sooner you realise different countries have different laws, the better.
None of my "rights" are being limited. If I want to own a firearm, I can go through the proper procedures, and get one. And if i'm completely honest, I'm glad they're not easily accessible. The last thing this country needs, is for all those knife carrying idiots, to easily get their hands on a gun
[QUOTE=erazor;22332470]It's quite amazing to see someone attacking a system that seems to protect its people much better.[/QUOTE]
Freedom or security? If you give up freedom for security, you deserve neither, and will receive neither.
Either way, [b]you're supporting an ineffective, overly expensive, right-violating, prohibition all because, what?[/b]
If this were to happen in the US, it wouldn't work, it would raise guncrime, and it would cause a million more problems.
No one pro gun has yet to acknowledge my first point.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22332578]Freedom or security? If you give up freedom for security, you deserve neither, and will receive neither.
Either way, [B]you're supporting an ineffective, overly expensive, right-violating, prohibition all because, what?[/B]
If this were to happen in the US, it wouldn't work, it would raise guncrime, and it would cause a million more problems.
No one pro gun has yet to acknowledge my first point.[/QUOTE]
Ineffective? Our gun crime rate is miniscule compared to the USA. We can still have guns here. I myself have a shotgun. If you want a rifle you can go to a club.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22331916]Yeah, [b]and this is the fucking problem. If you are a law abiding citizen, you can not have a gun. If you are a criminal, HERES YOUR GUN. They arent going to listen to this law, criminals are armed, the government is armed. You are the helpless man in the middle with no weapons, getting fucked by criminals, and by the government.[/b]
A prohibition can not, and will not, ever work.[/QUOTE]
You're not from the UK, really, you have no idea what it's like over here. Anyone from any non well-off area in the UK will tell you you're making a fool of yourself. Please save yourself the embarrassment. I can tell you right now, as a 17 year-old growing up in an industrial town, if guns were legal in the UK, I'd be dead. The kind of idiots who hang around the street corners herw are the kind of people who would shoot you on the spot just for defending yourself when they try to mug you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22332578]Freedom or security? [b]If you give up freedom for security, you deserve neither, and will receive neither.[/b]
Either way, [b]you're supporting an ineffective, overly expensive, right-violating, prohibition all because, what?[/b]
If this were to happen in the US, it wouldn't work, it would raise guncrime, and it would cause a million more problems.
No one pro gun has yet to acknowledge my first point.[/QUOTE]
Nice old quote you're sporting there. It's untrue in this case. See above.
Ineffective? Untrue. Check the statistics compared with the US on gun crime.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22330939]They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.[/QUOTE]
Nice little saying, shame its based on some pretty [B]fucktarded logic.[/B]
Since when did owning a gun become an '[I]essential[/I]' liberty?
If you believe it is, then where do we draw the line?
Is it the essential liberty of people in the US to individually own nuclear weapons? Why not? Have they not given up this liberty for a little temporary safety?
But my main grievance is the word '[I]deserve[/I]'. Since when did whoever wrote this get to make up rules on who deserves what? This kind of self righteous assumptive statement really winds me up.
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;22326434]too bad hardly anyone has guns there and concealed carry is illegal
they had to pay the ultimate price due to idiotic laws and this madman[/QUOTE]
Chances of you pulling your little "baby eagle" out of your jacket and being a hero are close to none. If they're going on a rampage, they're going to more than likely use Hollow-point, and they're going after anyone.
If you tried to be Mr. Hardcore Hero with your concealed weapon he'd of already shot and killed you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22332578]Freedom or security? If you give up freedom for security, you deserve neither, and will receive neither.
Either way, [b]you're supporting an ineffective, overly expensive, right-violating, prohibition all because, what?[/b]
If this were to happen in the US, it wouldn't work, it would raise guncrime, and it would cause a million more problems.
No one pro gun has yet to acknowledge my first point.[/QUOTE]
I am not a coward who wants a fanny slapping government run by totalitarian money hoarders.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22332578]Freedom or security? If you give up freedom for security, you deserve neither, and will receive neither.[/QUOTE]
Define freedom. Surely a true "free" society is not secure at all, because it's well within my rights to cause civil unrest.
this thread is just fucking shocking. Gun-toting americans [I]pain me.[/I]
[QUOTE=BAZ;22332935]Define freedom. Surely a true "free" society is not secure at all, because it's well within my rights to cause civil unrest.[/QUOTE]
No. Your freedom ends at infringing on anothers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
