Britain wants its guns back - Polidicks

Personally I would love to own a handgun. But this stems from a genuine interest in firearms and their history. Not because I'm scared for my safety or that I think its 'gangsta' If I was allowed to own one it would remain in a gun safe (At home) or at a gun club.

[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;40862149]Just like America only reversed, a few people go on a shooting spree and now people are calling for the ban of guns.[/QUOTE] I really wish people would stop comparing America and the UK in terms of guns, they're two totally different beasts, guns are from what I can tell a major part of American culture and society, over here we couldn't give two shits about them, the law works fine the way it is over here, there's no need to go changing what isn't broken.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40858600]Why has this gone from "Should guns be legalised in the UK" to "Should guns be banned in the US"?[/QUOTE] The Gun debate is hotter in the US since guns are a critical part of the American national identity and culture. [QUOTE=J!NX;40856645]hey want to know how to never kill anyone with a gun never carry a gun [/QUOTE] I'm sure that will be helpful when you need to protect yourself from criminals with guns. People should be able to defend themselves from gangs and thugs in the street. The police are not dependable in many circumstances, especially in large countries or countries with poorly funded police forces (poorly distributed funds :v:) .

No thanks.

Maybe a repeated opinion, but I prefer knowing that anyone that isn't a police officer that's carrying a gun is a bad person and that you should get the fuck out of where ever you are. I like my countries gun laws, even though prevents cool things like airsoft.

[QUOTE=Thechuz1337;40852443]Probably get dumbed for this but I would feel far more unsafe if citizens were allowed handguns.[/QUOTE] I'd feel unsafe if citizens from Bradford were allowed firearms. The town'd shoot its self to death before you could say "I hate living here" [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;40862319] I'm sure that will be helpful when you need to protect yourself from criminals with guns. People should be able to defend themselves from gangs and thugs in the street.[/quote] This is the UK, not Detroit. You do get gangs but if there's one flying about, they have a target most likely. 99.9% of the time they don't have guns either. [quote]The police are not dependable in many circumstances, especially in large countries or countries with poorly funded police forces (poorly distributed funds :v:) .[/QUOTE] This I agree with though. Not so much on an individual level but administrative. I'd be fully in support of Police being allowed to carry guns, but only if there was at least one other officer with them and they're patrolling in cars, not on foot. Leave that to the PCSOs and unarmed police. I'm not sure about the response times of Firearms Units, but if there is a crime involving firearms it'd be a lot better to get 1 armed cop immediately on the scene so there's at least some ability to react if they start shooting between then and when FU arrives, rather than a bunch of unarmed ones standing around with no way to defend themselves if they come under attack.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;40856468]This is going off track a bit but the people who go to gun clubs live in well off / sheltered lives, often living in the countryside away from the major population and of course, council estates. The very idea that people from the latter background possibly having legal access to a firearm is frankly terrifying, thats where gun crime would rise imo.[/QUOTE] I live on a council estate (North Devon Homes :suicide:) in a little seaside town in North Devon, the gun club I go to is 6miles away from me in the town Braunton. I have a semi-auto rifle, bolt-action rifle and a shotgun but I have managed to resist the urge and not kill anyone yet. The idea that council estates are all terrible is just retarded, it really depends which area and county you're in. I would say that there is not a place in Devon or Cornwall where you would get any kind of violence similar to the violence you would find on a council estate in say Luton or Bradford for example. Where I live it's quite nice, everyone is friends and there is never any kind of violence.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;40863481]I live on a council estate (North Devon Homes :suicide:) in a little seaside town in North Devon, the gun club I go to is 6miles away from me in the town Braunton. I have a semi-auto rifle, bolt-action rifle and a shotgun but I have managed to resist the urge and not kill anyone yet. The idea that council estates are all terrible is just retarded, it really depends which area and county you're in. I would say that there is not a place in Devon or Cornwall where you would get any kind of violence similar to the violence you would find on a council estate in say Luton or Bradford for example. Where I live it's quite nice, everyone is friends and there is never any kind of violence.[/QUOTE] Not every council estate is 'terrible' and not everyone that lives on a council estate is a cunt, but it depends entirely on the area you are from, Devon and Cornwall are not exactly 'deprived' areas' as you yourself said but you can't legalize guns for the country and then turn around and say, except you o'rrible lot. For argument sake, the council estates that i grew up on were and no doubt still are the polar opposite of the one you described.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But people are retarded and reckless, so don't give them guns.

I know you guys won't believe me but /k/ did this, someone made a thread and they all rushed the vote.

People who have no desire to own a gun have never had the need to own one.

Facepunch confuses, in the past people were pissed off in some state of USA that banned concealed guns carried and now people are talking of banning guns alltogether.

[QUOTE=bdd458;40860866]Ya' wanna know something funny about a lot of US Gun Homicides 30 years ago? At least in the late 80's early 90's it was related to Crack, the crack boom, and gang violence brought on by a gap between the poor and everyone else economically, especially in inner cities, hence Urban Decay and Stagnation. Crack is cheap to produce, easy to sell. People start selling it, drug hierarchies (Low level dealers vs the head honcho sort of thing) are introduced, turf wars start and gangs get big. Gangs became part of the inner city life, the part of the city that Middle class avoid. Compton in LA for example. There's where a lot of murders in the US stem from. It's the gang violence. We need to curb that before any other action is taken. Banning guns isn't going to stop that.[/QUOTE] watch as the most sensible post on this topic is ignored

[QUOTE=Teracotta;40872004]People who have no desire to own a gun have never had the need to own one.[/QUOTE] Just because you don't want to have one doesn't guarantee that you will never need it. You would be glad you purchased it if an armed somebody came into your house and threatened the safety of your family. [QUOTE=AWarGuy;40875013]Facepunch confuses, in the past people were pissed off in some state of USA that banned concealed guns carried and now people are talking of banning guns alltogether.[/QUOTE] A gun ban would cause complete chaos. Apparently taking the ammo away is what's on their agenda at the moment. The US government is purchasing a mass amount of ammunition to the point where it will soon become scarce to find. This seems to be their subtle way of taking guns from the citizens hands.

[QUOTE=dr.dray_7;40882422]Just because you don't want to have one doesn't guarantee that you will never need it. You would be glad you purchased it if an armed somebody came into your house and threatened the safety of your family. A gun ban would cause complete chaos. Apparently taking the ammo away is what's on their agenda at the moment. The US government is purchasing a mass amount of ammunition to the point where it will soon become scarce to find. This seems to be their subtle way of taking guns from the citizens hands.[/QUOTE] Here in Denmark a thief will literally never enter a house when somebody's home. And chances are the thief is unarmed. In general, it's simply a bad idea to escalate a situation. A thief might kill someone out of panic, but the best option in general is just to let them flee - even if they take some of your stuff. It's covered by the insurance anyway, there's no reason to risk your life and limbs.

I think the civilians should be kept under the current law, but I feel as if more police in Britain should have guns and be allowed to use them.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40853492]the thing is that it's more difficult to give a person blunt force trauma than it is to just shoot them from a greater distance. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] at the end of the day, there is already proof that gun bans work. look at australia. i don't know how you can just deny the answer when it's right in your face. it works. i get that the gun culture in america is deeper ingrained, which is why the same measures should be put into place at a slower rate.[/QUOTE] Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, in order to even purchase a gun you have to have a background and be approved by the local police department at least two times, that's two background checks you have to take and two approvals from the police to even buy a gun.(This is for every purchase you make) And guess what in 2011 there was 863 non-fatal shootings in Detroit, and 263 people who were killed by guns. I don't know about you but I doubt the guy who gets double background checks and double approvals from the police departments is the guy who is going around shooting people. No matter how strict you make it to buy guns, or even out right banning them. The people who want to get their hands on a gun will find a way.

[QUOTE=dunkace;40884839]I think the civilians should be kept under the current law, but I feel as if more police in Britain should have guns and be allowed to use them.[/QUOTE] patrol cops aren't to be trusted with guns any more than civilians - armed police should remain a special case in this country and not the rule

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40884411]Here in Denmark a thief will literally never enter a house when somebody's home. And chances are the thief is unarmed. In general, it's simply a bad idea to escalate a situation. A thief might kill someone out of panic, but the best option in general is just to let them flee - even if they take some of your stuff. It's covered by the insurance anyway, there's no reason to risk your life and limbs.[/QUOTE] We have such nice thieves in Denmark. Weren't there some people who got in trouble for self defence?

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;40885081]patrol cops aren't to be trusted with guns any more than civilians - armed police should remain a special case in this country and not the rule[/QUOTE] Yeah I kind of thought maybe more of the armed police.

The vote in the op isn't a credible source. It's accessible worldwide, and users can vote multiple times.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40859981]The goal of any law that restricts certain items in the name of "public safety" should be to decrease violent crime. Not just stopping crimes with that item.[/QUOTE] bleh, bleh da bleh de la bleh. Lowest gun homicide rate is a fantastic achievement and nobody wants this to change.

[QUOTE=dr.dray_7;40882422]Just because you don't want to have one doesn't guarantee that you will never need it. You would be glad you purchased it if an armed somebody came into your house and threatened the safety of your family. [/QUOTE] That rarely happens and not everyone in those situations react accordingly. Just a gun may complicate things, a gun with some experience does the trick but when both are optional, people are just going to buy guns and get no training.

Britain is already a nanny-state as it is. The voters have no chance of getting their "guns" back, too much health-and-safety shit everywhere and all the time. Though crossbows are actually legal in Britain, and I don't get why people want sidearms when they could get a hunting rifle/double-barrel shotgun fairly easily.

[QUOTE=dunkace;40885190]Yeah I kind of thought maybe more of the armed police.[/QUOTE] where? where do we need armed cops that don't already have them? i hope you're not suggesting that we put them on patrol