An SAS Soldier who kept a pistol from Falklands War as a trophy gets 15 months in prison - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50158188] So sure, you probably don't need a gun in metro UK to defend yourself. But in rural America, it is no where near comparable.[/QUOTE] This is pretty much my feeling on the matter, The UK and the USA are in drastically different situations when it comes to guns. It isn't as simple as "just ban guns" over there due to just how saturated the USA is with the fucking things, Im not saying I don't think it's an issue but at this point It almost looks impossible to put the genie back in the bottle- and that's exactly why I feel the UK has the right idea with how we do things currently. We have enough problems to deal with without throwing a shit-load of firearms, and all the problems that come with them, into the mix.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;50158296]This is pretty much my feeling on the matter, The UK and the USA are in drastically different situations when it comes to guns. It isn't as simple as "just ban guns" over there due to just how saturated the USA is with the fucking things, Im not saying I don't think it's an issue but at this point It almost looks impossible to put the genie back in the bottle- and that's exactly why [B]I feel the UK has the right idea with how we do things currently[/B]. We have enough problems to deal with without throwing a shit-load of firearms, and all the problems that come with them, into the mix.[/QUOTE] See, but that is the problem. They aren't inherent causes of anything good nor evil. Literally, they are an inanimate object. What happens with it is solely the responsibility of the handler. It's kind of like owning a dog. Sure their primal instinct is to kill, but with training and conditioning, they are excellent to have around. The same thing applies for firearms in the hands of trained people. No one is going to sell their dog to someone who can't care for a dog. No one here is going to sell their gun to some Joe Blow who is shady as fuck. (Obviously there are an extreme minority that are the exception to both of these examples, but we can both agree that you can't legislate against the majority for the off-chance the minority happens.) The analogy might seem silly at first, but really give it some thought. People own a few pitbulls, we all know their reputation as a breed. Some people own multiple guns, same premise. The UK, just like Norway, Sweden, US, etc. could handle firearms too. However, because of this overwhelming sense of fear, which is ever-so present in this thread with the hyperboles and crazy "what-if" scenarios, it isn't going to happen. That fear isn't necessarily good nor evil, but you should put reaction aside and wonder why it exists in the first place.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50156651]Thing is, while that much ammo sounds like a lot. It really is next to nothing. Thats like 3 and a half small ass boxes. I've went through over a thousand rounds in a day before. That said, I can see why Europeans wouldn't want firearms in their countries. They do make killing a lot easier. Were we to introduce laws providing more restriction. I have no doubts they would help to lower homicide rates here. But I am not a fan of having something like that restricted to me so I can't go along with that idea. Guns are fun.[/QUOTE] Oh I agree, just over a hundred pistol rounds isn't a lot. The problem is that the mere presence of the ammunition is what puts his claim into suspicion. But hey, different gun cultures and all. Personally I think there's a certain satisfaction in shooting at a target with a firearm that isn't easy to replicate no doubt about it. But again, I think where I disagree with many Americans is the calibre allowed and the weapon's firing mode. I'm not too much of a firearms expert so I can't tell you exactly what I'd feel okay with in terms of what calibre-sized firearm is acceptable, but there are a lot of states that allow high-powered and high calibre weapons that I wouldn't be comfortable with. Just remember, I'm an ignorant European here, so what I say is by no means fully comprehensive and insightful; I just like certain guns and I think that they should be allowed to be owned and used under certain limitations.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50150243]we don't want your damned guns here like literally the only people to benefit will be the arms manufacturers who will make a lot of money by convincing people they need to own guns for self defence[/QUOTE] It's funny everyone from the UK in this thread says shit like this but then immediately jumps in the U.S. related threads and goes bonkers about gun control, statistics and "what if????" scenarios You guys don't want guns, we don't want your laws. These threads are so tiring because at the end of the day absolutely nobody is going to change each other's minds, it just turns into shit flinging

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;50159491]It's funny everyone from the UK in this thread says shit like this but then immediately jumps in the U.S. related threads and goes bonkers about gun control, statistics and "what if????" scenarios You guys don't want guns, we don't want your laws. These threads are so tiring because at the end of the day absolutely nobody is going to change each other's minds, it just turns into shit flinging[/QUOTE] you've exposed a UK-only conspiracy, where all UK posters in this thread bundle into US threads to talk shit about gun-control or alternatively you're going into a UK thread, about a UK citizen, concerning UK gun law and going "THE US DOESN'T WANT YOUR LAWS" great you're doing exactly the same thing you're complaining about with the added bonus of sounding even more self-righteous [editline]19th April 2016[/editline] also, key difference - gun control is an active topic in US politics because there's a significant call for gun control [img]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/l7bw9jibvuselccuot8bdg.png[/img] whereas in the UK, there is no gun control debate - it simply isn't a discussed item so the difference is when you're discussing gun control in american threads, you're talking about an active political question when you're suggesting legalization of firearms in the UK, you're directly contradicting the established desires of the people that live here so when sobotnik says "we don't want your damned guns", he's actually right according to polls whereas in the US, it isn't that clear cut

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;50159491]It's funny everyone from the UK in this thread says shit like this but then immediately jumps in the U.S. related threads and goes bonkers about gun control, statistics and "what if????" scenarios You guys don't want guns, we don't want your laws. These threads are so tiring because at the end of the day absolutely nobody is going to change each other's minds, it just turns into shit flinging[/QUOTE] Literally the fifth (or thereabouts) post in this thread was an American talking about stupid UK gun laws - so your point rings kinda hollow.

I think you can have guns in society and be okay. Just not the US way. Switzerland gun laws are the way to go, and most of the male population gets trained how to use them during their conscription thing they have going on.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50159583]you've exposed a UK-only conspiracy, where all UK posters in this thread bundle into US threads to talk shit about gun-control or alternatively you're going into a UK thread, about a UK citizen, concerning UK gun law and going "THE US DOESN'T WANT YOUR LAWS" great you're doing exactly the same thing you're complaining about with the added bonus of sounding even more self-righteous[/QUOTE] first of all, calm down second, both American and UK posters do the same thing in both types of threads. I'm not advocating changing your laws at all, because honestly, I don't care. All I'm saying is arguing about it is basically pointless because you guys don't want guns, that is very clear, I can understand from your perspective why the UK doesn't want or need guns. It's difficult to compare laws and culture in the first place in a fair way So relax, I'm not trying to be self-righteous. [editline]19th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50159599]Literally the fifth (or thereabouts) post in this thread was an American talking about stupid UK gun laws - so your point rings kinda hollow.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's UK poster exclusive, it's a back and forth battle between countries that ends with nobody agreeing and pointless bickering [editline]19th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;50159603]I think you can have guns in society and be okay. Just not the US way. Switzerland gun laws are the way to go, and most of the male population gets trained how to use them during their conscription thing they have going on.[/QUOTE] Yeah I can agree for the most part that gun laws are a little lax here, considering it takes very little to buy them. I'm all for mandatory classes and training and all that to increase safety. People are too ignorant about handling guns.

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;50159612]first of all, calm down second, both American and UK posters do the same thing in both types of threads. I'm not advocating changing your laws, because honestly, I don't care. All I'm saying is arguing about it is basically pointless because you guys don't want guns, that is very clear, I can understand from your perspective why the UK doesn't want or need guns. It's difficult to compare laws and culture in the first place in a fair way So relax, I'm not trying to be self-righteous[/QUOTE] i am calm, sorry i'm not going to be cordial when you make a snarky post, claiming that there's some sort of weird poster conspiracy/hypocrisy as if you're making a point fact is - gun control is an active political question in the united states as shown by polls, meaning that discussing gun control in the US is legitimate, because there's a sizable percentage of the polls that want stricter gun control in the UK, there is no calling for laxer gun control, in fact, people want stricter gun laws than what we already have (almost overwhelmingly so according to consultations). also making an incredibly snarky post and then responding with calm down is fucking infuriating - you were baiting a response so don't be surprised when you get one

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50159635]i am calm, sorry i'm not going to be cordial when you make a snarky post, claiming that there's some sort of weird poster conspiracy/hypocrisy as if you're making a point fact is - gun control is an active political question in the united states as shown by polls, meaning that discussing gun control in the US is legitimate, because there's a sizable percentage of the polls that want stricter gun control in the UK, there is no calling for laxer gun control, in fact, people want stricter gun laws than what we already have (almost overwhelmingly so according to consultations).[/QUOTE] there was nothing snarky about my post, my point was both American and European posters do the same thing, I'm just tired of people acting like it's exclusive to one party. yes, I understand gun control is a political issue, I'm not ignoring that or saying anything contrary to that.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50158508]See, but that is the problem. They aren't inherent causes of anything good nor evil. Literally, they are an inanimate object. [/QUOTE] This is where you lot lose me. It's not simply a harmless object, It's a weapon. You can't compare a firearm to a dog, or even a knife or sword because I couldn't end the lives of multiple people, near instantly, from a considerable distance away with even the most well trained attack dog or the worlds sharpest knife. By the same logic, a bomb is just a soulless object too, bombs don't decide to kill people right? "They aren't inherent causes of anything good nor evil" you have to have a bad-guy to arm the bomb and use it for ill before bad stuff happens. But that doesn't mean we should just fucking hand bombs out to every random cunt and act surprised when people start getting blown up. Saying shit like "It's not the [i]bomb's[/i] fault!" doesn't matter because without bombs there can be no bombings. I'm sorry mate but seeing someone trivialise a [b]firearm[/b] as no different from a dog or a phone is pretty disturbing imo. You aren't making these weapons sound less dangerous, you are giving off the impression that you don't understand/respect the inherent danger surrounding such weapons. People can be unpredictable and dangerous enough without every single one of them having access to highly effective, efficient [i] weapons [/i] that they could use to kill each-other with.

You can't go hunting with bombs or defend yourself with a bomb or take a bomb to the range (safely) or safely collect and store bombs for historical interests. Bombs serve a purely destructive and harmful purpose and are much too dangerous to handle for casual historic interests. You can get licenses to own and store bombs if you really like bombs but there's really no point. Also bombs actually [I]can[/I] go off randomly as the explosive materials inside decay. Guns don't just up and start shooting. It would be apt to compare a firearm to, say, a table saw - an inanimate object that can't do any harm by itself but which demands respect and attention while being handled for safety's sake. Because in the US we value a concept called innocent until proven guilty we don't assume every single person is a nutty serial killer waiting for a weapon to fall into their hands, so you don't need licenses to operate table saws or firearms, because both can be safely kept and handled with a few common sense rules. Bombs are much more sensitive and inherently dangerous. In fact I'd say handling rules for table saws and firearms pretty much carry over directly - don't put things you don't want to saw underneath the blade/don't point the firearm at something you don't want to shoot, make sure the saw isn't plugged in while it's not being used/make sure the firearm is unloaded while it's not being used, etc.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50161289]You can't go hunting with bombs or defend yourself with a bomb or take a bomb to the range (safely) or safely collect and store bombs for historical interests. Bombs serve a purely destructive and harmful purpose and are much too dangerous to handle for casual historic interests. You can get licenses to own and store bombs if you really like bombs but there's really no point.[/QUOTE] The bomb analogy was directly a response to the "it's not sentient so it can't be dangerous" argument, I wasn't trying to draw a direct exhaustive parallel between guns and bombs. Id also like to say that ive never liked the "Don't ban guns because I like taking mine to the range!/hunting!" argument because it honestly comes across as "My hobby is more important than your safety". [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50161289]It would be apt to compare a firearm to, say, a table saw - an inanimate object that can't do any harm by itself but which demands respect and attention while being handled for safety's sake. [/QUOTE] Again, like the poster I responded to before, with this table saw analogy you are comparing an effective ranged [i] weapon [/i] to a static household tool. It's not a simple matter of the object being dangerous because it has sharp edges or moving parts, it's about it's effectiveness and capacity for destruction when used offensively- I couldn't stick a table saw in my coat and kill everyone in a movie theatre with it before they had time to react, they aren't the same thing, you aren't making the gun sound less dangerous you are making it sound like you don't understand/respect the weapon's capacity for lethality. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50161289]Because in the US we value a concept called innocent until proven guilty we don't assume every single person is a nutty serial killer waiting for a weapon to fall into their hands, so you don't need licenses to operate table saws or firearms, because both can be safely kept and handled with a few common sense rules. Bombs are much more sensitive and inherently dangerous.[/QUOTE] Cut this shit out. There have been fuck loads of incredibly patronising posts in this thread along the lines of "Unlike your country, in [b] AMERICA [/b] we understand the concept of XYZ, because of [b] FREEDOM [/b]". stop acting like America is this bastion of personal freedom the likes of which we outsiders can't possibly comprehend, it makes it very hard to take you seriously. ofc we value the concept of innocent until proven guilty in the UK, It's just that we also have the common sense to realise that not everyone is fit or trustworthy enough of having the lethality of a firearm at their disposal. The tests you have to undertake in order to qualify for a licence aren't just there to measure innocence and guilt (although if you have a history of violent crime you would, quite rightfully,[b] never [/b] qualify for a licence) they are there to gauge whether you have the understanding and means required to handle and store a gun safely. How is that a bad thing?, ~Innocent until proven guilty~ is all well and good, but when it comes to putting people's lives at stake id say the more caution the better.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;50161537]Id also like to say that ive never liked the "Don't ban guns because I like taking mine to the range!/hunting!" argument because it honestly comes across as [B]"My hobby is more important than your safety".[/B][/QUOTE] To be honest this is where you should just stop. We get it, you don't like guns, but to purposefully disregard everything told to you by gun owners about discipline and common sense regarding guns to just go "your hobby is putting EVERYONE'S SAFETY IN JEOPARDY!" is literal horse shit. To be honest this is why I hate the pro-anti side of the topic, no one will coincide and see the others point of view no matter how hard we try to explain ourselves, even using the best logic for our sides point of view. [editline]19th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=fulgrim;50161537]~Innocent until proven guilty~ is all well and good, but when it comes to putting people's lives at stake id say the more caution the better.[/QUOTE] You trade freedom for security, and you have neither. Just because of the actions of a few, doesn't mean we should punish the masses. That is all your beliefs would do here, punish decent people while disregarding the actual issues that stem from our countries violence.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50161558]but to purposefully disregard everything told to you by gun owners about discipline and common sense regarding guns to just go "your hobby is putting EVERYONE'S SAFETY IN JEOPARDY!" is literal horse shit.[/QUOTE] I didn't disregard anything. Those points about discipline and common sense are valid and worthy of consideration, Just saying "but *I* like hunting :downs:" is not.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;50161578]I didn't disregard anything. Those points about discipline and common sense are valid and worthy of consideration, "But *I* like hunting :downs:" is not.[/QUOTE] And you're purposefully negating a legitimate use for firearms because you arbitrarily don't like it. We get it, you don't like it, but other people do and your attitude is literally patronizing them for their hobby. You're not making yourself look like the better person here, despite your attempts to seem whole-hearted and wishing for everyone's safety.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50161558] You trade freedom for security, and you have neither. Just because of the actions of a few, doesn't mean we should punish the masses. That is all your beliefs would do here, punish decent people while disregarding the actual issues that stem from our countries violence.[/QUOTE] More freedom rhetoric please. How is preventing people who are obviously unfit from possessing firearms "punishing" decent people?- as ive said in previous posts, getting a gun in the UK isn't that hard- they check your criminal record, you pass an aptitude test, they check you have a decent place to secure a weapon on your property- if it all checks out, you get your gun. Id say letting a person who failed any of those steps have access to a firearm would be more punishing to "decent people". [QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50161591]And you're purposefully negating a legitimate use for firearms because you arbitrarily don't like it. We get it, you don't like it, but other people do and your attitude is literally patronizing them for their hobby. You're not making yourself look like the better person here, despite your attempts to seem whole-hearted and wishing for everyone's safety.[/QUOTE] I don't think i'm being unfair in the slightest. There is nothing arbitrary or opinion based about my point at all, and im not patronising anyone. Im simply saying that of all the posstive points you could bring up for gun ownership, "It's fun!" is probably one of the worst ones I can think of. The dude earlier who made a point about firearms for security's sake made a great point because that's actually an important issue, I totally agree that if police can't get to your property within the hour you should certainly have access to some means of defending the lives of yourself and your family. but when we are talking about ownership of items that make killing other human beings almost effortless, your hobbies aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;50161602]More freedom rhetoric please. How is preventing people who are obviously unfit from possessing firearms "punishing" decent people?- as ive said in previous posts, getting a gun in the UK isn't that hard- they check your criminal record, you pass an aptitude test, they check you have a decent place to secure a weapon on your property- if it all checks out, you get your gun. Id say letting a person who failed any of those steps have access to a firearm would be more punishing to "decent people".[/QUOTE] Well now I actually see what you mean, I thought you were all for gun bans and the like. I also admit I've kind of cursory glanced your posts because I'm a bit busy and a few of the things you said I took objection too. I'm all for all the checks and proper procedures for getting a gun legally, I just don't think guns should arbitrarily be banned just because of their inherent risk.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50161624]Well now I actually see what you mean, I thought you were all for gun bans and the like. I also admit I've kind of cursory glanced your posts because I'm a bit busy and a few of the things you said I took objection too. I'm all for all the checks and proper procedures for getting a gun legally, I just don't think guns should arbitrarily be banned just because of their inherent risk.[/QUOTE] Dw about it I don't blame you, these topics have a tendency to get super heated super quickly, with Pro/Anti posters both making pretty poorly thought out points over one another and not even considering eachother's positions. I can see how my phrasing would jump out and sound like it was heading that direction.

I didn't want to re-cover the security topic as it'd just been brought up and not replied to yet. Let me clarify I'm not opposed to safety tests before allowing someone to purchase a gun for the first time. My concern is with anything like that it creates a de facto registry, which is then used as a shopping list when the state or federal government decides it's time to ban either a particular type of gun or all guns. I would dismiss this as mere paranoia but it's already been done in NY and Cali + some other states. If I thought the government could be trusted not to fuck us over for playing by the rules I'd be more willing to entertain ideas like that. As it is though irreplaceable historic items have been chucked in the furnace after they were retroactively made illegal - and I don't like that. As a result I tend to stand pretty firm against additional regulations. [img]http://i.imgur.com/gGMsOYN.jpg[/img] There's no reason a responsible collector shouldn't be able to look after this weapon - instead someone decided it was more evil than others and it went into the bin. As I said earlier in this thread my personal concern is with preserving the immense historic value in this field (many of these weapons played pivotal roles in world history and are interesting to learn about and "play" with). My interest in this doesn't stop at firearms, mind you, I have rescued and preserved a lot of neat antiques, bits of history with stories to tell that help us better understand the past. Firearms are just much more interactive items than most - more fun to study and work with, than, say, the 2000 year old Roman signet ring in my smalls drawer. While handling something like that ring imparts a sense of awe and history that's difficult to describe, you can get so much more study time and enjoyment out of, for example, the Kar98k, which was used to fight one of the most important wars in human history, and which still works exactly as it did then. Sorry about the patronizing "us muricans value our FREEDOMS" bit. I got a little carried away. Personally I think existing firearm regulations should be stripped and rewritten entirely because right now we have a lot of arbitrary restrictions that go after random shit (shoestring machine guns) but do nothing to prevent actual, real issues.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50161558]You trade freedom for security, and you have neither. Just because of the actions of a few, doesn't mean we should punish the masses. That is all your beliefs would do here, punish decent people while disregarding the actual issues that stem from our countries violence.[/QUOTE] you do realise that by living in a state with laws and adhering to society you have sacrificed freedom for the security of that society. this is a basic concept in political and social thought, where classical liberalism in particular argues that (civilized) society is really just finding a tradeoff between security and freedom the question, is the freedom to possess firearms (in the broadest sense) a right that trumps the safety of people with regards to crime? in the United Kingdom we almost universally state that no, the right to own firearms is not worth it and that we would much rather prefer to see something that has a marginal role in society to be restricted in a tradeoff for better security from what we have observed, this has paid off for us

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50161766]you do realise that by living in a state with laws and adhering to society you have sacrificed freedom for the security of that society. this is a basic concept in political and social thought, where classical liberalism in particular argues that (civilized) society is really just finding a tradeoff between security and freedom the question, is the freedom to possess firearms (in the broadest sense) a right that trumps the safety of people with regards to crime? in the United Kingdom we almost universally state that no, the right to own firearms is not worth it and that we would much rather prefer to see something that has a marginal role in society to be restricted in a tradeoff for better security from what we have observed, this has paid off for us[/QUOTE] In the US it's difficult to draw a direct link between firearm restrictions and firearm crime due to the frenetic, knee-jerk nature of our firearm laws. Many areas that have completely banned firearms have some of the highest firearm crime rates. Many areas with next to no regulation whatsoever have some of the lowest. What that says to me (and other pro-gunners) is that ownership isn't the cause of those crimes - there are other underlying issues that can be addressed to remove the impulse to commit a crime in the first place - and that banning firearms in general will only disarm law abiding citizens and punish them for the actions of criminals.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50161778]In the US it's difficult to draw a direct link between firearm restrictions and firearm crime due to the frenetic, knee-jerk nature of our firearm laws. Many areas that have completely banned firearms have some of the highest firearm crime rates. Many areas with next to no regulation whatsoever have some of the lowest. What that says to me (and other pro-gunners) is that ownership isn't the cause of those crimes - there are other underlying issues that can be addressed to remove the impulse to commit a crime in the first place - and that banning firearms in general will only disarm law abiding citizens and punish them for the actions of criminals.[/QUOTE] generally cities with high crime rates are the ones with gun control laws, while rural areas with low crime rates already are pretty lax in terms of law ownership doesn't cause those crimes, but everybody is ignoring the elephant in the room that when the USA has hundreds of cities with hundreds of thousands of residents and a third of a billion guns circulating around in a nation that has massive industries constantly churning out guns and munitions its no wonder that it's so easy for a criminal to get a gun and to know how to use one, where to get the ammo, etc the pro-gun argument of "arm everybody to defend themselves" does little to actually resolve the massive number of guns floating around and the fact that vast multibillion dollar corporations make vast quantities of money by promoting fear to people and telling them "you must buy a gun to be safe" before they then count up their dollar bills frankly it's unethical, and nobody is going to dare challenge the firearms industry so until that happens americas gun violence problem will never be solved

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50161844]generally cities with high crime rates are the ones with gun control laws, while rural areas with low crime rates already are pretty lax in terms of law ownership doesn't cause those crimes, but everybody is ignoring the elephant in the room that when the USA has hundreds of cities with hundreds of thousands of residents and a third of a billion guns circulating around in a nation that has massive industries constantly churning out guns and munitions its no wonder that it's so easy for a criminal to get a gun and to know how to use one, where to get the ammo, etc the pro-gun argument of "arm everybody to defend themselves" does little to actually resolve the massive number of guns floating around and the fact that vast multibillion dollar corporations make vast quantities of money by promoting fear to people and telling them "you must buy a gun to be safe" before they then count up their dollar bills frankly it's unethical, and nobody is going to dare challenge the firearms industry so until that happens americas gun violence problem will never be solved[/QUOTE] Right - generally, yes - but that doesn't hold up everywhere you go. What I mean to say is the pattern here doesn't mesh with the general suggestion that "unregulated guns = gun crime, regulated/no guns = no gun crime". I definitely agree that the firearms industry heavily plays up the self defense need and I roll my eyes whenever an ad suggests I need the new Colt and Wesson 105mm AK-Murderkillerizer 4000 with integrated laser optics and dual bayonet mounts to defend my chickens from those dirty terrorists.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;50160756]This is where you lot lose me. It's not simply a harmless object, It's a weapon. You can't compare a firearm to a dog, or even a knife or sword because I couldn't end the lives of multiple people, near instantly, from a considerable distance away with even the most well trained attack dog or the worlds sharpest knife. By the same logic, a bomb is just a soulless object too, bombs don't decide to kill people right? "They aren't inherent causes of anything good nor evil" you have to have a bad-guy to arm the bomb and use it for ill before bad stuff happens. But that doesn't mean we should just fucking hand bombs out to every random cunt and act surprised when people start getting blown up. Saying shit like "It's not the [i]bomb's[/i] fault!" doesn't matter because without bombs there can be no bombings. I'm sorry mate but seeing someone trivialise a [b]firearm[/b] as no different from a dog or a phone is pretty disturbing imo. You aren't making these weapons sound less dangerous, you are giving off the impression that you don't understand/respect the inherent danger surrounding such weapons. People can be unpredictable and dangerous enough without every single one of them having access to highly effective, efficient [i] weapons [/i] that they could use to kill each-other with.[/QUOTE] The thing is, I understand the effects and intricacies of firearms. Far more than you do. I've been handling them since I was about 7. I am currently 23. I understand that it can take less than 3lbs of pressure to end someones life in an instant. My point wasn't to trivialize anything. I was trying to illustrate that when handled properly, just like with any dangerous thing, there is virtually no risk of harm. I understand your comparison, and no one is advocating we hand bombs out to "every random cunt". That is why we have the systems in place here that we do, which, contrary to foreign belief, actually do a very good job at their intended purpose. Can they be improved? Of course, nothing is infallible, nor will it ever be. I've argued this topic a million times in SH, and I like to think I am one of the saner "gun nuts". Most of us would love to see our background check system improved. It is horribly overflooded, and is becoming inefficient. We would also love to see public access to the NICS database, so private sellers can check for themselves. Trust us, we respect firearms far more than your average Harry in UK, thus we know all about what they can do. I make it a point to take people who have never held a gun to the range, and teach them what I know. Hell, I even remember in elementary school, they would teach us the basics of what to do if you ever find a gun lying around.