Shelved by: Bambarger on 2012-07-21
Comment on This Post:
...at least not that made the national news.
But there's today. And tomorrow. No one owns a gun to clean their toenails with it.
'Cause all gun owners are just out to kill things.
"I wonder what I'm gonna fuck up today with my here MR1 Benelli"
now just hold the fuck up. ok do you know why no contry has ever invaded the U.S. because we are a bunch of gun happy people with anger issues and they know we would kick ther asses 2 most gun owners have wepons to hunt game 3when the government decides to kill us all and orders the army to do so whos ass are you gonna be cowering behind 4 green land has the lowest crime rate of any country why because all adltes are required to serve in the military for a minimum of 4 year active duitey and are no resurve the rest of there lives and ges what every one has a fucking gun 5austrlya has the highest crime rate of any country gess what no one owns a gun there
also there was that deal with pearl harbor that ended bad for the invading team...
Actually I did for a while but now I have no toes... guess why jackass?
They sure do stay busy though.
What's your point?
Can we agree to stop posting things that are intended to shove your message down someone else's throat?
But that's not what the internet is about!
Guns are the bees knees, and I hope America never gets so ridiculous we're unable to own any
I hope the UK doesn't get so ridiculous that it takes off the gun restrictions.
Youse guys not fans of guns over there, eh?
Guns are evil and if you have one, it will sneak out at night and go kill innocent people. That's why you should lock them up and don't let them know where the key is. Guns are disrespectful tricky bastards.
I'm not saying it's the guns. I'm saying that guns shouldn't be allowed to everyone as clearly not everyone is suitable or responsible to own a gun.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
We've seen the number of spree shootings pretty much stop.
In the UK, the majority of people who get hurt by gun crime are criminals. Since the gun restrictions have come in, the amount of people not connected to crime who have been killed by a bullet is exceptionally low.
Just curious, what are the restrictions you've got in place?
It's, essentially, you need to have a license to own a gun though you cannot own or possess semi automatic and automatic firearms, handguns and armour piercing ammunition (handguns as they can be concealed easily). You must have a license (and it must correlate to the gun you want). To get a license you're required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting or collection, and you must past background checks; criminal, mental and addiction. You're also required to have 3rd party references and you have to renew it every 5 years. There is a set limit of guns you can have (there is no specifics, so I imagine it's individual to each person) and ammunition can only be owned and possessed by people with firearm licenses.
Also, you must be over 21 to own a shotgun.
That doesn't sound a whole heck of a lot different than some states here, although the no hand gun thing is a bit thick
I'm not saying make them illegal. I'm saying restrict them.
I totally agree there ought to be restrictions in place, just for general safety, but there are definitely those who want to make them illegal flat out, which is just craziness and against America's constitution
I'm not bothered about the constitution, lol, but that would cause a lot of problems for people. If you can prove yourself a responsible person to own a firearm, then fine. I know that there are still spree shootings from people with firearm licenses in restricted polices (again, 2010 Cumbria spree shooting) but he dissolved in a matter of months into that and his license wasn't up for renewal.
There will be too many issues making them completely illegal. If you have a valid reason to owning one (above defending yourself) then fine.
Its the bitch about living in the US, states get sovereignty in a lot of matters gun control being one of the them. In New Jersey, you can't buy an automatic or own one. But the same is not the case next door in Pennsylvania.
Why do you need an automatic?!
See, I get being able to possibly need certain guns for certain things. But an automatic?
Those are insanely strict. I'm glad we don't have to put up with crap like that over here. I wouldn't be able to own my beautiful Ruger 10/22 at all, and not my Remington shotgun for another year.
Have you ever used them?
Of course I've used them. Just about every chance I get. Not to kill people though, or even animals so far.
Just curious. Some people don't actually use them (even at a gun range) and just have them to look at, or in case someone decides to attack them randomly out of a street full of people.
I can see with the Handgun thing, why that can be seen as strict, but the others? You just need to prove you're a normal, human being, in all reality, before getting the guns you want (minus semi-automatic, automatic and handguns)
No one should keep a weapon for self-defense unless they train heavily with it. If I was attacked in my house, and had equal access to my Ruger 10/22 (a very low power semi auto rifle for squirrels, rabbits, etc.) and my dad's M1 Carbine (a medium power semi auto military rifle from the WWII Korean War era) which I have not yet shot, I would choose my low power rifle in a heartbeat, no person should ever try to use a weapon that they have never operated before in a life threatening situation, in my (correct) opinion. A collector's firearm I could see not shooting (my grandfather owns a Winchester model 1866, 100th anniversary edition, never fired.) My guns are well made weapons, but nothing rare or special, in America you can get a rifle just like mine for $275 (USD), and the shotgun is about the same.
Banning Semi-auto weapons and handguns is my biggest issue with UK gun laws, but I don't like how gun ownership is treated as a privilege that must be earned, (through procedures, licenses, etc.) rather than a right that may be lost. (For being a felon, on drugs, etc.) Here, anyone over 18 with proof of residence and identity can buy a rifle or shotgun after filling out a form, and a quick call to the FBI for an instant background check for any disqualifying factors, same goes for 21 year olds and handguns. On the Semi-auto/handgun issue, we have a lot of groups over here wanting them banned too, under prez Clinton we got a ban on the manufacture of certain semi-auto rifles, like the AR-15. (Thank God that expired in '04) The main argument against them is that they have features from the military weapons that they are based on, and those features cause their purpose as a legitimate sporting firearm to be outweighed by the chance that they could be used to kill or injure people, to roughly quote a judge. They overlooked completely the fact that self defense is a legitimate use of a firearm, including killing people, in certain situations. I believe that if half of the qualified people in that theater had a concealed handgun and the training to use it safely that the death toll would have been much lower, in fact, if more Americans carried, cowards like him wouldn't be bold enough to try things like that. Yes, if people in the theater had pulled out guns and started shooting, things could have gotten more dangerous, but this coward surrendered as soon as the cops (who had guns) came. 90% of the time a hand gun serves it's purpose without ever being fired. I don't have a ref for that number, don't remember where I heard it, but logic dictates it should be close, he surrendered as soon as the threat of opposing weapons reared it's head.
Wow, that was a long-winded post.
But why would you need a semi-automatic? I think that's ridiculous.
Handguns are illegal here as the very act of concealing a weapon is illegal. Handguns are too easily concealed. Plus, you need to good reason to own a gun, and only the collectors one has room for a handgun.
I think, statistically, it's something like 87% incidents involving guns never actually get shot but stop an attack. However, it's really hard to calculate since that sort of thing doesn't get reported in... well, reports and documents. It could be more, could be less.
I don't know if that guy fits the full description of a spree killer. He made a conscious decision. Most spree shooters either end by shooting themselves or being shot. So something is a bit dodgy with... I still don't know if it would lower the death toll though, it may have just caused more panic and a stampede.
A semi-auto is a hundred times better than a bolt action or lever action for defending yourself in home invasion situations, because if you miss, you can get off a second shot right away, instead of being overrun by the assailant and having your weapon snatched away, leaving you unarmed. I can see the higher restrictions on full-auto weapons, because full-auto means you can spray a lot of bullets down range with little accuracy, making it more suited for war than defense, while semi-auto just saves the shooter a few seconds in between shots, making it ideal for taking out a single target with good precision. The difference is one is for war, one is just easier and faster to operate.
Here you need a license to carry a concealed handgun, but anyone over 21 who may legally own a gun can keep one on their property, and many states allow open carry in public, although it is rarely practiced. To get a CHL, you have to take a class, and learn about the laws regarding concealed carrying, and in which situations use of deadly force is legal, (for example, Shooting a man who is chasing you with a knife = legal, shooting a man who parks in a fire lane = illegal.) A good CHL holder can be as good as a police officer in many situations, in fact, Many CHL holders are off-duty/retired police or military. Therefore, having trained CHL holders in the theater would be roughly as good as, if not literally the same as, having police officers present during the start of the shooting. Also, in a situation like this, in the shoes of a CHL holder in that room, I would consider my chances of taking the murderer down to be much higher if I had a semi-auto pistol than if I had a revolver.
I think the best way of getting almost all kinds of violent crime down is to put more weapons in the hands of responsible people, not to try to take away the crook's ability to do crime, because they will always find a way. bomb making is insanely easy, you can make it illegal all you like, but you can't make the components impossible to get, and criminals don't care what you ban, if they want things to kill with, they will get them. Crooks will always be able to murder, with guns, especially semi-autos and handguns, at least the good-guys can fight back.
This old bad-ass and those two stupid kids are why we have guns and CHLs. Btw, gun control laws have made it "impossible" for those two kids to own a handgun, as they are 19 years old, shows how well they work.
Well unfortunately the story isn't about the fact that 84 million firearm owners didn't kill anyone...it's that one killed several and injured even more. Let's not make this about something else...
I agree. Its about one person. So leave the rest of us alone. We should not be punished with laws of tyranny for the actions of one crazy person.
As if gun control laws are going to stop someone who is willing to do such things.
Again. Spree killings in areas with restricted gun policies are extraordinary rare. We're talking decades and more of nothing like that happening.
So you know, majority of spree shootings in countries with restrictions are done by people without criminal history. They're almost always done by people who have had a license, usually for years, who has had a series of unfortunate events which results with the decay of their mind. They pick up their guns, which, usually, they own legally already and have a legitimate reason to owning one, and... well.
This event would have been prevented if there were gun laws in place. It doesn't stop the criminal world, but usually the owners of guns in the criminal world are gangs and not the ones which burst into your home. So, normally the people effected by guns are the police and other criminals, not civilians.
Usually, mind. There are cases where civilians are caught in the crossfire or have been targeted specifically, for example the ex-girlfriend and her partner of Raul Moate.
Spree killings are extremely rare anywhere, not just in places where gun control is law.
People on the black market don't care if you're a gangster as not as long as they're getting the money. That's a ridiculous statement. All gun control does it limit our freedom to defend ourselves. I guarantee if someone else in that theater had a gun it wouldn't of happened to the extent that it did.
I'm just saying that the majority of illegal gun owners which effect civilians are part of gangs, as they're the ones with the connections to get the guns.
And no, it would have been worse. A cramped, dark room, filled with people, no-one sure who's doing the shooting? Yeah, a second gun wielder wouldn't have caused the panic to grow, and no-one would have been caught in the crossfire at all.
Not just gang members have connection to guns.
Your assuming things here...
In the UK, the majority of gun crime is committed by gangs and the victims are usually rival gang members.
Pretty much everyone who's been harmed by a gun has either been caught in the crossfire of gang war, or have been a police officer. With the exception of the Cumbria Massacre and Raul Moate (who I refuse to see as a spree killer; I'm of the opinion he did it to make it look like he'd lost his mind in a manner of a spree killer)