Guns in the S
08-07-2007, 04:49 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North London
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprisingly no one ever suggests trying to get guns out of the hands of criminals!!
Not easy, but surely the best solution?
No one, other than the military, really needs a handgun. Range shooters can leave it at the range.....
Not easy, but surely the best solution?
No one, other than the military, really needs a handgun. Range shooters can leave it at the range.....
LOL
08-07-2007, 04:55 AM
#33
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wakefield, West Yorks.
Posts: 17,570
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ukphil78,Aug 7 2007, 01:49 PM
Surprisingly no one ever suggests trying to get guns out of the hands of criminals!!
Not easy, but surely the best solution?
No one, other than the military, really needs a handgun. Range shooters can leave it at the range.....
Not easy, but surely the best solution?
No one, other than the military, really needs a handgun. Range shooters can leave it at the range.....
They are illegal over here, but they've still got them
08-07-2007, 05:04 AM
#34
Originally Posted by Boab01,Aug 7 2007, 01:22 PM
Canada have many more guns per head than the US. The problem is the mentality that spawns from overcrowding cities and a decreased sense of community. we have a similar problem, just no guns.
08-07-2007, 05:25 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 10,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Fletch,Aug 7 2007, 12:19 PM] Not read it all.... just the first and last pages.
While I have no firm views, or solutions, one way or the other I do agree with this comment from one of the pro lobby. ....
"Do you really think crime would decrease if the US bans guns??? All that would really do is inform criminals with guns that they now have the upperhand over every law abiding citizen who has just been disarmed."
So basically, they're screwed either way
While I have no firm views, or solutions, one way or the other I do agree with this comment from one of the pro lobby. ....
"Do you really think crime would decrease if the US bans guns??? All that would really do is inform criminals with guns that they now have the upperhand over every law abiding citizen who has just been disarmed."
So basically, they're screwed either way
08-07-2007, 05:43 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the back wheel. . .
Posts: 20,306
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by C7BLE,Aug 7 2007, 02:25 PM
Can you honestly see knife violence decreasing in that scenario?
Because every arguement / road rage / sorry I spilled your drink / type incident would lead to people pulling knives and stabbing each other
08-07-2007, 06:02 AM
#37
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wakefield, West Yorks.
Posts: 17,570
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that arming the law abiding is the answer. Far from it.
All I am saying is that you can't expect the criminals to simply stop carrying guns because everyone else is.
I expect certain murders and accidental deaths would be reduced but I wouldn't expect to see much of a drop in armed robberies etc.
In fact, if the shop keepers were no longer allowed to "defend themselves" I wouldn't be surprised to see armed robberies go up.
The problem is that they are already out there and freely available in the squillions.
It would take a huge effort to go out there and actually "take" them all back. Much more of an effort than Strathclyde Police had to do.
All I am saying is that you can't expect the criminals to simply stop carrying guns because everyone else is.
I expect certain murders and accidental deaths would be reduced but I wouldn't expect to see much of a drop in armed robberies etc.
In fact, if the shop keepers were no longer allowed to "defend themselves" I wouldn't be surprised to see armed robberies go up.
The problem is that they are already out there and freely available in the squillions.
It would take a huge effort to go out there and actually "take" them all back. Much more of an effort than Strathclyde Police had to do.
08-07-2007, 06:05 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 10,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Hale,Aug 7 2007, 01:43 PM
Never.
Because every arguement / road rage / sorry I spilled your drink / type incident would lead to people pulling knives and stabbing each other
Because every arguement / road rage / sorry I spilled your drink / type incident would lead to people pulling knives and stabbing each other
This why I don't buy the whole "it's like wearing a seatbelt...you hope you never need but if you do" bolocks
No-one every went into a school and seatbealted 15 kids to death.
The other argument the trot out is "Guns don't kill people ...people kill people"
This is also shite. Yes, on the surface that is true however it takes REAL commitment and dedication to kick someone to death.
My other favourite is "people are killed in arson atacks, are you going to ban matches?"
No because they serve some useful purpose and were momenterality misused. Guns are designed solely for killing people, apart from target shooters, no one would be any worse off if you took their gun off them.
Also the "our country was founded on the right to bear arms"
It was also founded on killing the natives and black slavery, are they advocating that as well?
If guns are so good for self defense then why not kick it up a notch. Nothing says "get out of my way" like a good old fashioned flamethrower.
Maybe when they have had a couple of thousand years of civilisation they might catch on...
08-07-2007, 06:11 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 10,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fletch,Aug 7 2007, 02:02 PM
I'm not saying that arming the law abiding is the answer. Far from it.
All I am saying is that you can't expect the criminals to simply stop carrying guns because everyone else is.
I expect certain murders and accidental deaths would be reduced but I wouldn't expect to see much of a drop in armed robberies etc.
The problem is that they are already out there and freely available in the squillions.
It would take a huge effort to go out there and actually "take" them all back. Much more of an effort than Strathclyde Police had to do.
All I am saying is that you can't expect the criminals to simply stop carrying guns because everyone else is.
I expect certain murders and accidental deaths would be reduced but I wouldn't expect to see much of a drop in armed robberies etc.
The problem is that they are already out there and freely available in the squillions.
It would take a huge effort to go out there and actually "take" them all back. Much more of an effort than Strathclyde Police had to do.
A few arrests at the beginning to show they meant business, a few stop and searches and dramatic improvement.
Ok there are still people with knives (and there would still be people with guns) but they should be dealt with by the authorities and not by arming the public.
Take a look around you Chris, how many people would you trust with a firearm?
08-07-2007, 06:15 AM
#40
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wakefield, West Yorks.
Posts: 17,570
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.... The guy next door has a glock, and a garage full of body armour and riot gear.
But he is an inspector with the local firearms squad.
Other than that .... not many
But he is an inspector with the local firearms squad.
Other than that .... not many