Firearms

[Endless]

killing a man for trespass? i would rather live in iran. i would only get my hand chopped off for theft there. far better. and you would hit someone for insulting you? that just shows your level. "an eye for an eye" but it's not really it's a vcr for your pulse. and your lucky you are able to hold a gun with your lack of remorse for assualt.

By any mean, go to Iran! Or China! The point is, you broke the law, you pay for it. I'm not going to watch you walk away with the things I worked to get because "it only costs so much". Since I could use money, you surely don't mind if I take some of your savings since you well, pretty much no way of defending yourself. You could call the cops, but honestly, would the cross the sea to get £50 back? Haha.
Also, it takes a whole lot to get me angry. If I hit you, you asked for it, really.

you talk of normal people like they are segregated from nutters. thomas hamilton didn't have a word against him before he shot up a primary school. they aren't easy to spot. one day they just turn round and shoot someone. alot of murderers have no record before they end up killing someone.

They are, and let me emphasize, the MINORITY. By far. For every 100,000 legal gun owner in the States, there is what? 1 that will go nuts every other year. So let's remove guns from the 99,999 that are perfectly sane because one of them might become crazy. And if he does, and doesn't have a gun, he'll use a knife, or an axe (props to Manchester City for that one). Did it solve anything? Nope.

"First, a lot of gun owners make it very well known that they own a gun." i was talking about the criminal.

"Criminals on the other hand wouldn't have any problem at all." they would. as soon as you fid a gun on them or their property you can get them put away for a while. no need to wait for them to injure someone or kill them.

NO. They wouldn't. Obviously, criminals break the law. Would they break it to get a gun too? Hell yes. How do you find a gun on their property? You need a suspiscion and a judge that believes you. Then you need to search for it and find it. Needless to say, if I was a criminal, I'd hide it in a place you wouldn't find. I'd still have my gun and no one would know about it. The only way you'll know someone has a gun, since you can't have a policeman watching everyone at all times, is when they use it. And since you won't be able to defend yourself when it happens...

Also, I forgot to link to my source last post.

Edit: I forgot to add that in the US, the highest crime rates are in metropolitan areas. Number one prolly still is Washington, D.C., which happens to have the toughest gun control laws of the US.

[Madame Adequate]

killing a man for trespass? i would rather live in iran. i would only get my hand chopped off for theft there. far better. and you would hit someone for insulting you? that just shows your level. "an eye for an eye" but it's not really it's a vcr for your pulse. and your lucky you are able to hold a gun with your lack of remorse for assualt.

Oh sweet smurfing God above us, please hit yourself in the head really hard and try reading this thread again. Not one person here has said that death is a proportionate penalty for theft. As has been said repeatedly however, your house is not a court of law, it is your home. It is where you and your family live, it is where your most beloved possessions are, and it is in it's best form where you belong. It is not a court of a law, it is a situation where you are under attack.

you talk of normal people like they are segregated from nutters. thomas hamilton didn't have a word against him before he shot up a primary school. they aren't easy to spot. one day they just turn round and shoot someone. alot of murderers have no record before they end up killing someone.

Erm, wtf? He said that there were few enough cases of 'nutters' for their ability to acquire guns to be too small to outweigh the benefits of innocent, law-abiding citizens who like the idea of personal defense owning guns. You've completely missed, or ignored, what he was saying.

"First, a lot of gun owners make it very well known that they own a gun." i was talking about the criminal.

And incredibly enough, so was he. If you know someone has a gun, you're less likely to mess with them than if you think they might, and in turn those are less easy targets than those you know don't have guns.

"Criminals on the other hand wouldn't have any problem at all." they would. as soon as you fid a gun on them or their property you can get them put away for a while. no need to wait for them to injure someone or kill them.

Yes, because that's working so well right now, isn't it? There certainly isn't a black market for firearms in Britain, oh no, not at all.

Edit: Plus, would you support random stop-and-searches, or entering people's houses without due suspicion to search for firearms?

[Endless]

I just remembered seeing this picture so I searched and found it again. Enjoy.

[Cloud No.9]

you missed the point of that quote lionx. when i talked about his level it was about the fact that he would assualt someone for insulting him.

and my other point which you seem to misuderstand is that you can't stop "crooks" from getting weapons. because a lot of the time they weren't crooks before. you can prevent anyone with a record getting a gun legally. but they would just by one anyone on the black market which will exist with or without legislation but will be easier to find when guns are more prevelant in the country. but not all crooks have records. not all nutters who tomorrow are gonna shoot a guy in the street for "dissing him" have records. it prevents nothing.

"The point is, you broke the law, you pay for it." with vigilantism?

"If I hit you, you asked for it, really." noone "asks for it" i could call your mother every name under the sun but when you lay a hand on me for that you will be spending alot of time in jail. which is where the police come in handy and it is them that would get my money back from you or anyone else.

"You need a suspiscion and a judge that believes you." actually you don't. you can stop and search under the spotlight scheme used for deadly weapons. and to remove a man from the street for gun posession is far better than doing it for murder.

[Endless]

you missed the point of that quote lionx. when i talked about his level it was about the fact that he would assualt someone for insulting him.

Let me find the page with the 1000+ insulting words. Since you won't budge, I might aswell release pressure on you.

and my other point which you seem to misuderstand is that you can't stop "crooks" from getting weapons. because a lot of the time they weren't crooks before.

And I daresay they were. Good luck finding stats supporting your view.

you can prevent anyone with a record getting a gun legally. but they would just by one anyone on the black market which will exist with or without legislation but will be easier to find when guns are more prevelant in the country. but not all crooks have records. not all nutters who tomorrow are gonna shoot a guy in the street for "dissing him" have records. it prevents nothing.

So let me get this straight. Gun control prevents nothing?

"The point is, you broke the law, you pay for it." with vigilantism?

With protecting my damn life, dammit. I'm not gonna wait until I know if you are after me or my vcr to defend myself. Feel free to do so.

"If I hit you, you asked for it, really." noone "asks for it" i could call your mother every name under the sun but when you lay a hand on me for that you will be spending alot of time in jail.

The police wouldn't do jack about it.

which is where the police come in handy and it is them that would get my money back from you or anyone else.

xD
You're delusional. Someone stole your wallet? Good luck getting the money back. It'll never happen, they have much more important things to do than look for your £15.

"You need a suspiscion and a judge that believes you." actually you don't. you can stop and search under the spotlight scheme used for deadly weapons. and to remove a man from the street for gun posession is far better than doing it for murder.

Welcome to the Middle Age, when you can be arrested without a reason, just because you displeased the local officer.

[Cloud No.9]

actually the police take abh seriously.

go ahead endless bring out the book.

gun control doesn't totally prevent gun crime. it creates a crime which can stop another more serious crome before it happens. it's a bit like conspiracy. if we got rid of the conspiracy law the only time we could stop terrorists is after they've killed a few hundred people. same thing with guns. you may not get all the terrorists/crimnals with guns but you can get more than before.

the police actually spend quite a lot of their time doing their job and solving crimes and arresting people.

and stop and search isn't arrest. it's the same thing a bouncer would do outside a night club. they pat you down check your pockets and that's it. it's normally done if you have a protrusion form your jacket pokcet, have been IDed by somone or are acting suspiciously. i had it done in edinburgh last week. it's not the middle ages. vigilante violence and death for theft is the middle ages.

[Lionx]

you missed the point of that quote lionx. when i talked about his level it was about the fact that he would assualt someone for insulting him.

Lol i did, but what i said is still true :x

Insults the word alone is too vague, many things can tick people off, and it might not just be ticking too. Try going up to Bush and shouting crap at him when he is at a speech, tell me he wouldnt get angry at least.

and my other point which you seem to misuderstand is that you can't stop "crooks" from getting weapons. because a lot of the time they weren't crooks before.

Seriously, no one can check every person that walks into a gun store to see if they are murderers or to-be murderers. Only those that did not have a crime to begin with. What are they going to do if no one has a crime? Suspect everybody that comes in? Be realistic. That, and if everyone was armed, the crooks might not be that crazy to do what they were going to do.

That and if gun control laws prevent nothing, why not arm ourselves up for more? Who knows when that next door guy is gonna blow me up? *tosses a grenade over*

The police wouldn't do jack about it.

I disagree, depending on the officer and the prejudices he might have things might turn out differently. That aside we can easily arrest you for battery if not also harassment and maybe even more charges for "pain and suffering". Depends how far you wanna push it but battery for sure.

with vigilantism?

If everyone in this world can call the police and have them arrive immediately there to save their lives i am sure none of us would even care about owning a gun. So i am going to pay with my life should the police not arrive in time? Or the guy breaking in snaps and kills every hostage in the standoff?

How about someone off the street tries to rape you or mug you, are you just gonna stand there? Would fighting and trying to get him off you (gun or not on you) be called vigilantism? If it is, then i guess it must be ok for people to get raped and not fight back.

[Madame Adequate]

gun control doesn't totally prevent gun crime. it creates a crime which can stop another more serious crome before it happens. it's a bit like conspiracy. if we got rid of the conspiracy law the only time we could stop terrorists is after they've killed a few hundred people. same thing with guns. you may not get all the terrorists/crimnals with guns but you can get more than before.

Uhuh, making criminals out of people who own something you don't like worked brilliantly with prostitution, prohibition, and drugs.

and stop and search isn't arrest. it's the same thing a bouncer would do outside a night club. they pat you down check your pockets and that's it. it's normally done if you have a protrusion form your jacket pokcet, have been IDed by somone or are acting suspiciously. i had it done in edinburgh last week. it's not the middle ages. vigilante violence and death for theft is the middle ages.

Ah, here it is. Guys, this is why we're not getting through. He has absolute faith that the police are uncorrupt, unracist, and unbiased in their entirity, and he believes he was be sufficiently protected by them no matter the situation.

Cloud, I hope you never have cause to change that opinion, I really do.

[Teek]

Ah, here it is. Guys, this is why we're not getting through. He has absolute faith that the police are uncorrupt, unracist, and unbiased in their entirity, and he believes he was be sufficiently protected by them no matter the situation.

Cloud, I hope you never have cause to change that opinion, I really do.

I guess if it's a capitalist society, the government is corrupt beyond repair, but when it's a happy, secure society where all freedoms are abolished in the name of the people (such as gun laws) the government and all of its actions are completely uncorrupt and unbiased.

[Endless]

actually the police take abh seriously.

go ahead endless bring out the book.

Don't make me laugh. What would they do because I punched you, and it left a bruise on your face? Put me in jail? Get real. After all, you (verbally) assaulted me beforehand. (Edit: isn't that "harassment" for you?)

gun control doesn't totally prevent gun crime. it creates a crime which can stop another more serious crome before it happens. it's a bit like conspiracy. if we got rid of the conspiracy law the only time we could stop terrorists is after they've killed a few hundred people. same thing with guns. you may not get all the terrorists/crimnals with guns but you can get more than before.

It doesn't prevent much at all. And, since I actually have the stats for crime rates and the UK is worse than the US, why should other countries follow you when all I see is inefficience? I'm very sorry for the victims, but your cctvs didn't prevent the bombings in July. It helps to find who did it, but it doesn't stop it. It's an illusion of security, just like airport security measures.

the police actually spend quite a lot of their time doing their job and solving crimes and arresting people.

I still say they have better things to do than find your £15. Maybe they'll find the culprit if you had a chance to see him or had witnesses, but they won't go that far for this little.

and stop and search isn't arrest. it's the same thing a bouncer would do outside a night club. they pat you down check your pockets and that's it. it's normally done if you have a protrusion form your jacket pokcet, have been IDed by somone or are acting suspiciously. i had it done in edinburgh last week. it's not the middle ages. vigilante violence and death for theft is the middle ages.

No it's not. In one case, they rightfully choose who they let in their private property. In the other case, I'm walking in the streets, in a public space. "acting suspiciously" is the generic reason to do a search on someone you don't like. It's bullsh*t 99% of the time. Cops used to do it on arabs and blacks in the 90s all the time here, just to be asses, because they had the power to. And you don't have your papers? One night in the police station's cell while they "background check" you. Didn't matter that you didn't do anything wrong, they just didn't like your face. Amusingly, it's gonna happen in the UK when they get the obligatory ID card law passed.

Edit: and it's not "death for theft" for chip's sake. It's protecting my life. As I said, I'm not going to wait until I know what you're after to defend myself and the other people in my house. Not gonna take the chance.

[Fithos]

pffshhh you really think that if someone is able to illegaly purchase a gun they havent come up with a plan to kill you before you kill them.
if they are going to rob your house and know you have a gun they will come up with a way around it. you will be dead before you know that someone is in your house. thats what criminals do they find ways around problems. your woning a gun woulnt make a difference to them. they will take time to buy armour and automatic guns with armour piercing rounds. no matter what you do they will always have a way around it. so if everyone had a gun then they would know who to use their newfound tactics on.

also dont you think that if you owne3d a gun they would treat you as more of a threat? i mean if i was a criminal and new only one person on your street had a gun you would be my first target.

also go ahead and throw any name you want at me. only fools are stupid enough to get mad at baseless namecalling.

[Lionx]

Its like you are saying that just to rile people up Fith. :rolleyes2

You are assuming way too much. How do you know all these things? Would every crimminal be a mastermind? Not everyone is one. Plus why would you rob the house with the greatest risk of you getting killed? Thats pretty dumb wouldnt it? I mean target the house that has greatest risk.

your woning a gun woulnt make a difference to them. they will take time to buy armour and automatic guns with armour piercing rounds.

First these are pretty expensive. Most robbers in arrests use cheap guns because they are cheap and easily disposable so they can get a new gun for another crime. Second the availibility of armor piercing rounds are kinda rare these days with ammo bans, only way you can have any is that you have some before the ban, and ammo is not cheap for those kinds of bullets.

There will always be newfound tactics, however not everyone is going to adapt the same way, and there will also be new tactics for you as well as time evolves.

[Cloud No.9]

i want the best defence of all against people. a suicide bomb belt. when i feel threatened i can just push down on the button and good night vienna.

and the police are just as corrupt as you or i. or anyone else with a gun. law should not be in the hands of those it is there to protect.

and endless abh carries a prison sentence. but for a first time you might look at a warning or community service.

"It helps to find who did it, but it doesn't stop it." this is the point. removing the tools of murder is more effecient than catching the murderer. murders which america has more of in america (also with firearms) per capita. because death is far easier to deal out.

[ShunNakamura]

u know armor only stops the puncture right?

the guns i look at focus more on slamming power rather then piercing. doesn't matter if it doesn't go thru, if it hits hard enough to break a bone or too without the need to punture.

though i don't know many guns with that much power it still holds.. if one hit knocks u back a foot or two u likely won't be able to accurately shoot right afterwards.. and if u don't drop it(which i woulda said by then) then i adjust aim and hit where the armor doesn't cover.

and if it entirely covers u and u are a guy.. a couple shoots to ur extremities would still put u down easily.

add- head and seen guns capable of easily able to knock large men backwards and leaving brusies throug armor... i am sure one was a handgun.


remember i am advocating hard hitting gunds not the expanding deadlier piercing ones. platemail could block arrows... but a mace could still put a knight out cold.

[Skyblade]

While I'm too lazy to read all the posts stuck up there since my last contribution, I would like to comment on a situation brought up by one of these nice, civic minded people: specifically, the problem of someone bringing a gun into a public area and shooting everything in sight. Again, I point to the solution: someone with wits and a gun could put a bullet into the crazy person fairly easily. Someone randomly shooting people makes a very nice target, they tend to stand there straight up and down just like those cardboard targets they have at firing ranges. While you could quite easily duck down, aim a quick shot, and put them out of commission before they hurt too many people. Of course, this requires that you carry a gun. I suppose you could try spraying him with mace, or attacking him with a knife, but I wouldn't suggest it.

Oh, and I believe I heard Cloud No.9 mention that he'd rather live in Iran where he would only get his hand chopped off for stealing? Now I understand where you're coming from. Cloud No.9 is a criminal. That makes perfect sense now. Why else would he want to deprive people of the ability to defend themselves? Of course, he proved my point. A criminal would prefer to go somewhere where people are less likely to kill him for his crimes. End result: fewer criminals, lower crime rate. Guns deter criminals. Thanks for the support, Cloud No.9!