Gun laws

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by bhawk, Feb 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

  2. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    I shall also hasten to add that the level of restriction and licensing of guns has NO correlation with gun crime, it has been proven that restricting them does not decrease gun crime. Especially when you think that the majority of people using guns for crime are able to get guns illegally (heck most people can get them illegally nowadays)

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
    -- Mahatma Gandhi

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    So do you agree or disagree with the proposals?
  3. me myself and i

    me myself and i Account Closed

    Well Ben, you know my thoughts on guns anyway and killing animals.
    Personally i would like to see an end to guns full stop.
    No guns= No killing
    The countryside alliance is full of people who show no caring to others, i witnessed this hundreds of times whilst hunt sabatouring, these same people still had dog fights, cock fights and enjoyed seeing a fleeing fox being torn to shreds. I was put in hospital several times.
    Dont tell me we need guns to cull, mother nature is pretty good at that already.
    They call shooting a sport.................really? well my definition of sport is something that goes on between two or more consenting parties.
    As for jobs, well, the manufacturing and car industries have seen huge losses job wise, people can always choose another vocation, one that does not involve murder of another living thing.
  4. me myself and i

    me myself and i Account Closed

    btw ben be gentle with me!!! hugs dude, bit of man love! ha
  5. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    But we have already screwed up the ecosystem hence we need to manage it now. Not only that but hunting has been shown to be the best form of conservation, no hunter wants to eliminate their quarry.
    The main topic here however isnt the use of guns for hunting i believe its about our rights, guns are in existence, they will be around for a long time, my point is that guns should be accesible as they are in america and i am jealous of their second ammendment, that they have the right to bear arms and it is their duty to do so in the face of a corrupt government.
    When only the government have firearms it becomes a police state. We should have the right to own one and as stated before their is no correlation between guns restriction and gun crime, restricting firearms has had the reverse effect than would be expected.
    I honestly believe we should have the right to protect or homes and lives with firearms, otherwise we are letting criminals be armed and having no resistance to them.

    'No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.'

    -- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972
  6. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    :hugtackles: :D
  7. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    Also id like to say i believe tony martin the farmer who shot burglars was right in doing so, he had been burgled 10 times before and was losing his livelyhood due to the burglars, one of the burglars even tried suing him for being shot in the leg, this is feel shows the governments willingness to help the purpotrators over the victims
    Every mans house should be his castle and the right to protect is should be upheld
  8. me myself and i

    me myself and i Account Closed

    But Ben, you are a good man, can you imagine the anarchy if guns were a legal right.
    Ffs, we already have enough gang gun culture, are you telling me that people would feel safer knowing someone could have a shooter in his coat pocket legally, paranoia and death would be rife.
    Killings would rise, the answers lie far deeper than cure, they lie in prevention.
    Prevention achieved by education, at an early time.
    Children must be educated more about the damage guns and violence brings.
  9. me myself and i

    me myself and i Account Closed

    The man you refer to in the above post, lives in my town, he is a swaggering jerk.
    His culture and upbringing gave him the thought that by taking and stealing was ok, we have to look at the reasons and not fight fire with fire.
    Otherwise........both sides get burnt.
  10. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    I do believe in education with guns, gun safety and a responsible attitude are definately necessary, yet look to america where they have allowed concealed carrying of weapons, the crime actually dropped. Someones much less likely to attack you if theres the possibility of you having a gun.
    Still my view is not that everyone should be allowed to carry one concealed, personally i see no reason myself to conceal a gun but the ownership should be allowed. I have guns and they are safely locked away and only ever used in the field, just because i have them doesnt mean ill carry them around with me, i do believe there should be regulation, not restriction.
    I do think that for ownership of guns there should be a compulsory course taken first, to show proper gun safety and management, education and regulation are better than restriction.
    On the subject it was quite funny the other day i was walking past a bus stop and heard to very old women talking about their new shotgun...the people you least expect to be shooters lol
  11. cult logic

    cult logic Staff Alumni

    The whole notion that taking guns away takes the violence and criminal tendencies out of people does not make much sense to me.

    All restricting guns does is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

    People who want guns to commit crimes will usually get them, regardless of what the law is. Needless to say, even if I were unable to get a gun as a criminal, more than likely I would just use something else.
  12. Kaos General

    Kaos General Well-Known Member

    Hmmmmm well i have a slightly different view than most because i was brought up slap bang in the middle of the countryside in the Forest of Dean. Ok then, say that hunting foxes was banned? What do you think would be the result of that? Do any of you enjoy chicken? Enough said. Say rabbit hunting was banned, enjoy veg? Enough said.

    Foxes and rabbits and a lot of other things in between have been classed as vermin for a reason. Whether people think its right or wrong is irrelevant. Until you actually live in the countryside where the countryside alliance makes sense people shouldnt be too quick to judge.

    Gun laws? guns are banned from the UK already and their is no shortage of gun crime in deptford and peckham where i currently live. Why must the government always react in such a knee jerk way? Banning shotguns will do nothing, its just a PR stunt. When they banned handguns, what happened? Absoloutely nothing. So one person went on a rampage with a gun, yeah its very sad but what if it would have been a knife? Would we then ban all knives as well?
  13. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately he made the mistake of not finishing them both and plowing them under his fields.
  14. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    guns are not toys.

    Im sorry but I believe public safety comes first. The right of a nut to carry a gun should not supersede a child's right to live in safety.

    The idea of having everyone carry guns is just crazy, guns in school , guns at playgrounds , and pubs, this is nuts IMO.

    More guns = More murder and probably more suicides.......... the numbers do not lie. Look at the murder rate of the US and compare it to Britain or France.

    and, the idea that if everyone had guns crime would go down and we would not have these mass shootings, this is not true at all. As Tuscon showed.

    Most gun murders are done by people who know each other or family members from what I am aware. Wifes kill husbands and vice versa or family members. Or accidents. here is the data.

    A pistol has no purpose other than hunting humans.

    I would not feel safe knowing that any kook could be packing heat legally.

    That being said I do believe that the second amendment guarantees the right to an armed citizenry. However the founders did confiscate muskets from citizens.

    So I believe that there is nothing wrong with rifles for hunting. But handguns are a whole different ballgame.

    I believe that if you want to have one you should be subject to a rigorous screening.

    At some point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in that if you walk around all the time with a gun and love your guns and shoot at human shaped targets etc........ eventually you will probably shoot someone
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2011
  15. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    My uncle says that your logic is faulty and is akin to saying "People are always to going to get drunk, so why not give them the keys and allow them to drive, because after all it is not the car that kills it is the person"

    and this is wrong in that, if the person was not allowed behind the wheel, that kid would not have gotten ran over.

    Same difference with guns
  16. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    But is it not a persons right to drive in the first place?
  17. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    That's because it doesn't make any sense. The gun grabbers just hope if they keep saying it often enough, everyone will eventually just accept it as the truth. They learned that tactic well enough from the pages of history.

    This is true but irrelevant. You can't win an argument with an irrational person who doesn't care about the truth simply by being rational.

    See above.

    And again, you're not the first to make this (very good) point. But you're talking to a brick wall.

    You have to understand when you're talking about this that you're (in all likelihood) arguing about an irrelevant point with people who aren't even interested in what they say they're interested in. Those who want to get rid of guns don't care about whatever crime and violence that goes on on the streets and in people's homes. They're simply interested in disarming the population. That is their goal and it has little to do with reducing crime as we're familiar with the term.

    They will use crime statistics or whatever (sad sob stories on the news) to advance their agenda if it appears to support it but at the end of the day, if gun crime was virtually nonexistent, they would still be there arguing the same old thing and blowing every little thing that did happen way out of proportion. They're believers. It's essentially their religion and they will not be deterred by reason, logic or rationality.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2011
  18. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    The US says that citizens can 'bear arms'. By that definition most people would say that it would be permissible for a US citizen to have cruise missiles in the back yard; it is not.

    Personally, though, I'm for the owning of all non-automatic rifles by citizens and a standing ban on any ammunition types that can't be reasonably defended as something you'd need to go hunting with. Armour piercing rounds and hollow-point rounds do not, I think, fall in the category of what you should be using in a reasonable hunt. I dunno, bhawk, you'd know better then I if a hunter really has legitimate use for JHP ammo.

    My reason is that a rifle allows you to hunt, even without AP ammo it's going to do enough damage against infantry if there's a day when you need to fight the government and/or foreign powers invading and it's pretty damn hard to conceal.

    I can't really see much legitimate use for a pistol, machine pistol or sub machine gun but I do think firearm ownership within the citizenry is a good idea.

    I can't really decide if shotguns should be permissible. Probably not. As awesome as it is I'd also have to ban dragon-breath shells.
  19. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Why exactly would a shotgun not be permissible? Its a hunting weapon primarily anyway.
  20. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    I do agree with you,a small 22 rimfire is all i need for pretty much every use, i do also agree with shotguns, they are the main gun used for any game bird.
    The ammunitions i do think should be controlled, i see no use for armour piercing round and they have no place in a hunting scenario. As for hand-guns i can understand them being for recreational use (shooting galleries) but i do not see them being of any use other than that (bar defending your home, which any gun will do....or cricket batt for that matter)

    The thing that annoys me most is, like many things, the government do not take a scientific approach to firearms. If they were to rely on science they would acknowledge there is no correlation between gun crime and gun restriction. Instead it is surrounded by politics and all the bollocks that entails.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.