Mad about Guns: America's Deadly Weapons Obsession

reply to post by Bassago


Personally having or not having a gun has never once affected what i've done and i've walked merrily into some seriously rough areas in the uk like moss side and never felt afraid...ok being 6'3" and a good size may help against normal people but against a gun it's hand up but there a thing about guns in the UK especially for the underworld is that they don't want the attention so some poor guy getting stuck up 2 streets from your house by an idiot with a gun will mean for the next month there will be armed cops around killing your business

I've never felt afraid of a weapon by default as when i was a kid my uncle had a shotgun as part of his job as a farmer and in the 1970's it would be quite often be in the back of the van when he came to visit and there was a big glass jar full of cartridges at my grandfathers as he'd empty his pockets when he got there so he could go and visit the local cattle markets without any trouble

reply to post by crazyewok


You can denigrate as you ALWAYS do with people who present FACTS to you. You don't deal with one friggin fact. You spout off your government propaganda and are seen as a liar by those of us who actually spend the time looking up the facts.

Please supply something factual to back up what you are saying for once. That way we can examine it, test it, and verify if it's real or make-believe.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by crazyewok

 

You can denigrate as you ALWAYS do with people who present FACTS to you. You don't deal with one friggin fact. You spout off your government propaganda and are seen as a liar by those of us who actually spend the time looking up the facts.

Please supply something factual to back up what you are saying for once. That way we can examine it, test it, and verify if it's real or make-believe.

So my original post about the Consititution wasnt fact ok?

Or my post about the why the US won the revolution? (I dont see you refuting that cause you cant).

O right you mean the UK posts.

Thing is this the UK is not the the THREAD TOPIC so I wont derail it anymore.


Thought facts I have delt with:

US 2nd amendment mentioning the words "well regulated" though what that means is up for debate.

US won the Revolution due to the French getting involved and tieing up most the UK forces. without which the British would have won or at least the war would have dragged on alot longer.

UK murder rate is lower. Albit violent crime is reported as slightly higher (most likley due to our drunken problems and reporting diffrences) Also someone who LIVES in the UK will know much more about UK crime than a American!

reply to post by crazyewok


Spain and France helped, but we had to fight for OUR freedom. This is why America playing world cop won't do any good because the people will not maintain their own freedom. This thread is all about Americans maintaining our freedom, and without that we are lost. I tell you now, that if Americans are disarmed, your countries will become far more dictatorial than they are now, and you will rue the day you spoke the foolish words you have. Just remember you were warned.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Spain and France helped, but we had to fight for OUR freedom. This is why America playing world cop won't do any good because the people will not maintain their own freedom. This thread is all about Americans maintaining our freedom, and without that we are lost. I tell you now, that if Americans are disarmed, your countries will become far more dictatorial than they are now, and you will rue the day you spoke the foolish words you have. Just remember you were warned.

Translation:

IM A MERIKAN RAR RAR RAR!


Spain and France didnt just helped. Without them the war would,nt have lasted two years! Before they directly got involved they suppied most the heavy weapons, cloths, boots and vital suppies that without would have meant the continetal Armys death at vally forge. And there Direct involvemnt prevented the Royal Navy blockading America (needed back at home to blockade the french) and also diverted huge amounts of troops, troops that could have turned the tide. To claim otherwise pissies on the graves of the the brave french that died to help give you your freedom!


BTW if you could read I have never said the US should ban guns, guess reading needs to be put along with History and things the American education system need to improve

reply to post by crazyewok


If you read what I said, America should Stay OUT of the world internal country troubles, so that is the opposite of your crap, RAR RAR RAR. I can tell you that we will be RAR RAR RAR if they try to forcefully disarm us and I am proud to say I trust my fellow countrymen and women who are not brainwashed by the liberal anti-gun propaganda.

So, since you have not said we should have no guns, just who should have guns in your ever so humble opinion?

UnifiedSerenity


So, since you have not said we should have no guns, just who should have guns in your ever so humble opinion?

Again I have never said that

Your makeing things up again.

To late for gun control in the USA. What the point? You have hundred of million circulating legal and Illegal.
Anyway places like Switzeralnd and Norway have pretty lax gun control but still have a low murder rate and few mass shootings (with a few execptions) so the issue is not haveing guns.

In my opinion its how guns are viewed thats the problem.

reply to post by crazyewok


You said, "I have never said the US should ban guns" and are you so pedantic that I have to say word for word what you said to be correct in it's application? I could reword that to be that you never said the US should disallow guns, and by your response you would say, "I ever said that!" You act like a child in a discussion and it's makes one not want to engage with you anymore because you seem to just want to disagree to disagree.

reply to post by Bassago


they(the uk) can have hand guns they just have to be large hand guns and not readily concealable,they also have much more access to suppressors(silencers in hollywood)

www.youtube.com... like this gentleman from the UK

www.gunpolicy.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Classifications of firearms Rifles British law defines a "rifle" as a rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of long-barrelled revolver or pistol. Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in .22 rimfire calibre. Pistols The 1997 law did not ban pistols as such and was drafted in terms of small firearms[19]:3.2. British law defines a "pistol" as a firearm with a barrel shorter than 30 cm or a total length of less than 60 cm[20] (this definition encompasses revolvers, revolving pistols). Only muzzle-loading pistols—including muzzle-loading revolvers—are permitted; in practice all such firearms use black powder—a Class 1 explosive—as the propellant. Small quantities of muzzle-loading pistols and revolvers in various calibres, which comply with the regulations, are manufactured.[21] All other pistols are prohibited on the UK mainland, with some exceptions such as pistols used for the humane dispatch of injured animals (such as deer) and some historical firearms. Specific models of blank-firing starting pistol that are "readily convertible" to fire live ammunition can also be banned. The Bruni Olympic .380 BBM blank-firing revolver was banned in 2010 on evidence that it was being illegally converted.[22] Long-barrelled revolvers and pistols "Long-barrelled revolvers" and "long-barrelled pistols" meeting specified criteria are not classified as small, and hence prohibited, firearms; it is legal, with a Firearm Certificate, to possess them. The barrel must be at least 30 cm long, and the firearm at least 60 cm long, which can be achieved by having a permanently attached extension to the grip or butt of the firearm. Long-barrelled single-shot firearms of any calibre, and semi-automatic pistols of .22 rimfire calibres, are permitted with FAC.[23] Target pistols Aside from special temporary exemptions for major events such as the 2012 Olympics, pistol shooting for sporting purposes has been effectively banned since 1997. As a result, the GB pistol squad has to practice abroad.[24] A few models of single-shot .22 calibre free pistol, as used in the 50m Olympic 'Free Pistol' match, have been produced to meet the "long-barrelled pistol" conditions. Some free pistols have removable stabiliser bars extending backwards to improve stability; the UK-legal models have been made with non-removable stabilisers to extend the dimensions, instead of contrived and non-functional grip extensions. Examples are the single-shot Pardini K22 Longarm[25] and the Westlake Britarms Long Pistol, a permitted .22LR five-shot semi-automatic pistol.[26]

sorry for long quote but its from wiki so i dont think they would mind

the British are not as disarmed as we would like to believe what the uk does do is over-legislate the ammunition and amount of ammo that can be possessed in the magazines of fire arms and who can access that ammo

and www.theguardian.com... talks about how just like in America the mentally ill are not banned from owning guns in the uk just for being mentally ill only being a danger

Doctors have agreed to breach their duty of medical confidentiality to patients who own guns if they fear they have become so seriously mentally ill they may use their weapons on themselves or the public, the Guardian has learned. GPs say they will tell the police if a gun owner's deteriorating health makes him or her a serious danger to the public, without the patient giving consent to their medical privacy being breached. In order for doctors to know which patients have guns, the medical records of patients holding or applying for firearms licences would be "flagged".

TLDR uk laws are quite simaler while being different in many ways and yes they have guns even hand guns but they are highly legislated compared to the usa

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity



Oppp sorry misread your post before.

Im working and didnt read the not.

So you accept that I said the the USA should not ban guns.

Ok to awnser the queation who should have them?

Well whoever wants them in the USA I guess. Not for me to tell you what you can and cant have right?
Though I guess my personal opinion it should be decided on a state by state basis. A AR-15 probably isnt suitbale for New York where as a handgun most likley is and out in the middle of Alabama you could most likley safely own a grenade launcher! But seeing as guns are flooding the USA some sort of weapon should be avalible to any law abiding citizen if they choose as banning them wont stop them circulating illegal as there as so many. The focus should really be rather than resticting gun instead promoting gun saftey (As in gun safety courses to help stop accidents) and education on proper use at schools as well as a cultral shift that stops glorifying gun violence but rather view guns as a last resort or hunting too not some status symbol or something one goes to first.

RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Bassago

 

they(the uk) can have hand guns they just have to be large hand guns and not readily concealable,they also have much more access to suppressors(silencers in hollywood)

I forgot about the suppressors in the UK. Franky I'm jealous.

the British are not as disarmed as we would like to believe what the uk does do is over-legislate the ammunition and amount of ammo that can be possessed in the magazines of fire arms and who can access that ammo.

This is a problem for us as those two recalled Colorado senators just found out.

and www.theguardian.com... talks about how just like in America the mentally ill are not banned from owning guns in the uk just for being mentally ill only being a danger

Doctors have agreed to breach their duty of medical confidentiality to patients who own guns if they fear they have become so seriously mentally ill they may use their weapons on themselves or the public, the Guardian has learned. GPs say they will tell the police if a gun owner's deteriorating health makes him or her a serious danger to the public, without the patient giving consent to their medical privacy being breached. In order for doctors to know which patients have guns, the medical records of patients holding or applying for firearms licences would be "flagged"

This is also a huge concern here for gun owners in the US. The criteria is highly subjective. Any doctor who was anti-gun could effectively have you disarmed. If they were simply mad at something you said or did, same thing. Member of UKIP or(in our case) Republican? No guns for you.

Attention!!!

Closed for STAFF REVIEW

This thread is being closed to allow members to consider their thoughts before continuing.
You are responsible for your own posts.

Bickering and personal attacks end now!
Members should know that posts that deviate from civility, and do not discuss the topic will be removed.
Members who continue to flaunt the rules WILL face temporary posting bans.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review