There's a joke in there somewhere but I just don't see it. Game shooting is shooting from afar with a shotgun and then taking it home to eat. There's nothing better than roast hare. :3 I want to go hunting now....TheNamlessGuy said:
Question for people Pro-guns....
- Thread starter Moth_Monk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This. This is the only answer to this topic.Hazy992 said:
The USA, to a degree, relies on guns and therefore needs them to keep the status-quo. Not to mention that it would be harder to regulate strict gun-control when the place boarders countries that do not.
In the UK, however, the sudden introduction of something we have previously demonised and have learned to fear will upset the balance. People who live in rough areas will start arming themselves to the teeth in fear of the new surge of 'baddies with guns' and getting twitchy about it.
Two different countries, two different cultures: that's why Canada is armed to the teeth and yet has less gun-related crime than the similarly-packing USA.
When people argue against assault rifles, as an example, 'because they aren't necessary for hunting' - its a straw man argument. Hunting was never the reason for the second amendment.
America was a country that had to earn its independence. Early americans wanted to preserve the right to form militia, or to defend oneself from hostiles (who themselves might have access to guns), or from invaders, or from their own government. You know - the people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.
Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.
besides, guns are very simple low-tech devices, you could make one in your garage w/completely legal machines/materials. Certaintly not on par w/modernized military special weapons, but they'd do the job. Making them illegal would no more get rid of them than making meth illegal does, unless you could also get rid of the *demand* for them so no one felt it was worthwhile to produce them.
Look at how some of the martial arts were born, when weapon ownership was made illegal for the peasants, so they created fighting styles that turned their farm implements into equally as deadly weapons as the ones they weren't allowed to own.
America was a country that had to earn its independence. Early americans wanted to preserve the right to form militia, or to defend oneself from hostiles (who themselves might have access to guns), or from invaders, or from their own government. You know - the people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.
Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.
besides, guns are very simple low-tech devices, you could make one in your garage w/completely legal machines/materials. Certaintly not on par w/modernized military special weapons, but they'd do the job. Making them illegal would no more get rid of them than making meth illegal does, unless you could also get rid of the *demand* for them so no one felt it was worthwhile to produce them.
Look at how some of the martial arts were born, when weapon ownership was made illegal for the peasants, so they created fighting styles that turned their farm implements into equally as deadly weapons as the ones they weren't allowed to own.
Hahahaha! I love that video!TheNamlessGuy said:
Well, I'm all about guns. People are evil and will use anything to kill others. I feel like our right to bear arms is more important than the presumed safety of eliminating guns. But hey, who's asking me.
The reason that the Second Amendment exists is because governments are afraid of an armed populace. While gun control does not necessarily immediately precede dictatorships, it's no surprise that pretty much every dictatorship that has ever existed has had laws to prevent its people from getting their hands on weapons.
Why must people keep talking about assault rifles? The US banned registration of new assault rifles in May 1986, though anything previously registered is fine.
Moth_Monk said:Yep this thread had to get posted.
Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what
The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If you're going to make a thread about this issue, at least get the basic points of your opening post right.
Guns are not illegal here in the UK. Its amazing how many people think that, and its really fucking annoying.
Handguns and semi-automatic and automatic rifles are illegal. Anything else is fine, providing you have the correct license. For example, shotguns of any kind, hunting rifles, or single shot military rifles. All ok.
Special police units are armed with handguns and SMGs or even rifles. Ever been to an airport?
Yay! at least somebody realises!Nantucket said:
This topic has been done to death time and time again. I'll just say that as a UK gun owner I support our restrictions, as I too see no reason to own handguns or automatic rifles. Here we have the guns we need, and nothing more.
Shotguns for game sports or clay shooting, and rifles for deer etc. Everything else is a bit over the top.
I'm not sure it's that they can't get them, it's limiting the channels through which they can be obtained. A lot of would be criminals might be turn off guns completely if they're difficult to obtain. Plus limiting guns limits the ease of killing someone, no ones ever heard of a mass knifing before. All I'm saying is that if you took it away, there would be less death and a smaller percentage of the population running around with the weapon, it wouldn't get rid of it completely, but the numbers would go down.matrix3509 said:
Qouted from SmegInThePants
Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.
......*looks at David Cameron*....hmmmm
Being a resident in the UK means i aint never seen a real firearm in my life and i would prefer to keep it that way. What really pisses me off is in the UK you can't really defend yourself, your family or your home from burglers not even with the fists you were granted at birth. Momment you do you get arrested and have to do time because they cried "UMAN RIGHTZ!! LOLZ!!" You see in the UK the burglers have more rights then the normal law abiding person.
I would prefer it to be. You enter my house uninvited with intent to harm me, my family or steal my stuff. Your rights are now forfeit if you get hurt thats your own bloody fault shouldn't be breaking into peoples homes in the first place then should you? Side note- Doen't help matters that alot of the police in my town are fresh out of school lolis with fuckall muscle...thats my towns protection?..*facepalm* No wonder crime rate in my town isn't too pleasant nowadays.
Making guns illegal is all fine, until the day a tyrant gets hold of your government and turns such forces as the police force/military into enforcers of said tyranny. Hopefully you'll never need to use your right to bear arms to throw off a tyrant. Or if someone w/a fascist bent manages to get elected in your country (whatever that may be) the fact that you and all the other citizens are armed - will certainly limit how far he'll be able to go while he remains in control.
......*looks at David Cameron*....hmmmm
Being a resident in the UK means i aint never seen a real firearm in my life and i would prefer to keep it that way. What really pisses me off is in the UK you can't really defend yourself, your family or your home from burglers not even with the fists you were granted at birth. Momment you do you get arrested and have to do time because they cried "UMAN RIGHTZ!! LOLZ!!" You see in the UK the burglers have more rights then the normal law abiding person.
I would prefer it to be. You enter my house uninvited with intent to harm me, my family or steal my stuff. Your rights are now forfeit if you get hurt thats your own bloody fault shouldn't be breaking into peoples homes in the first place then should you? Side note- Doen't help matters that alot of the police in my town are fresh out of school lolis with fuckall muscle...thats my towns protection?..*facepalm* No wonder crime rate in my town isn't too pleasant nowadays.
What you have said is just silly, there is no fucking way a tyrannical dictator would ever come to control the united states, let alone turn the armed forces against it's civilian population. The right to bear arms, died when America became a global superpower. Don't be a fucking idiot and delude yourself into believing that something like that will ever happen. Your army is there to protect you against outside threats and that's all you need, it'll be a cold cold day when a dictator ever comes to control the united states and a reason for the stupid right to bears arms is ever relevant again.SmegInThePants said:
The Coalition Government is fighting hard to have a bill pushed through that will give you more rights to defend your home. I believe the bill went along the lines of: If you have a shotgun you can point it at the person but you are not allowed to shoot unless you are physically threatened with a lethal object.Ragetrain said:
To be honest, if you've got a gun in the first place then you're experienced and a hunter therefore hopefully cool under pressure so there is a small chance of shooting the burglar. I doubt somebody would fight back too much if they're staring down the barrel of a gun anyway.
You're also allowed to physically attack the person if they threaten you but you are not allowed to kill them.
I'm not sure how far this bill has gotten or if it has been thrown out of parliament. The case that supported this was turned into a shambles due to the fact the farmer who killed the burglar had the biggest Weed farm in the country lol.
I don't know the particulars of UK firearms legislation, but this has to be wrong, or there's a regional difference between NI and the rest of the UK. We have a semi-automatic rifle and 2 handguns (1 semi-auto, 1 revolver) all very legally owned.Wadders said:
A higher percentage of people in Switzerland own guns then in the US, and they have lower Gun crime then the UK. There are things you're not taking into account when it comes to crime in the US. Higher diversity tends to lead to more violent crime, cultural tensions and all that. We're also on the border of Mexico and drug trafficking means that like it or not we get caught up in the Drug War.
So yeah, in terms of situation we're far to different to really compare if you want an accurate depiction of what gun availability leads to. Better off comparing the UK to Finland or Switzerland. And as others have noted, you should be comparing violent crime, or deaths from violent crime, not just gun crime.
So yeah, in terms of situation we're far to different to really compare if you want an accurate depiction of what gun availability leads to. Better off comparing the UK to Finland or Switzerland. And as others have noted, you should be comparing violent crime, or deaths from violent crime, not just gun crime.
Forgive my ignorance here as my knowledge regarding Northern Ireland legislation is rubbish.ReadyAmyFire said:
But - doesn't NI deal with the IRA on quite a regular basis? Perhaps the safety of residences due this organisation has impacted your gun laws?
I think the idea that "people are killing each other with guns, so we should ban guns" is really missing the point. A gun is a means to an end. You have a people problem that you have to deal with. Incidentally, a gun is a perfect tool for that.
I like my technology too much to be in the past at any one time. Actually I think thats the only senario that a gun would be useful. Travel back in time, conqure the earth.cerebus23 said:
I just find it a shame that a society has become so heavily reliant on an object which sole purpose is to kill other things. So much money pumped into an industry that could be put better use else where which could help further the human race or cure world wide problems.farson135 said:
I agree.Spartan1362 said:
I am mainly based in Japan where cult religions can gas you and earthquakes and tsunamis can wipe your town out, and radiation is leaking from power plants, but we never have to worry about guns.
I prefer that than living in the U.S. where everything is about "rights".
I also think that its impossible to take away the guns from a country that is already so used to having them around.
My solution is to not go live there, and leave them to shoot themselves.
It's all about preference really.