Hoplophobes Sink To New Lows

[Ian_Gere]

TL;DR = Legislation Creep is a real phenomenon - if people with an irrational fear of legally held semi-auto firearms, which are not the firearms used in the majority of simply criminal offences, nor in any terrorist acts, get them banned; there's a very real possibility that the bandwagon will gain enough momentum for them to come after RIF's and maybe even airsoft as a whole. Sign The Petition!

re: IP-15-6110 draft to amend 91/477/EEC
European Commission Proposals to strengthen control of firearms ('Fact' Sheet)

Change.org EU : You cannot stop terrorism by restricting legal gun ownership. by stijn Vandamme

On the morning of 7th January 2015 Terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo, with fully automatic, unregistered and illegal firearms.
Since then the EU has been preparing new legislation to ban semi-automatic firearms in the hands of law abiding EU citizens. Despite the fact that these weapons were not used by terrorists and are not even typically used by criminals.

They use unregistred[sic], untraceble[sic] black market full auto Kalashnikovs.

The new legislation has been on the back burner since April 2015, only to surface now on 18th of November, barely 5 days after a second attack in Paris.

The victims of this tragedy have not been buried yet, the criminals are still on the loose and the police has not even finished the investigation and yet the EU is announcing measures to prevent something like that from happening again.

Unfortunately nothing in the draft would have prevented these 2 attacks since neither were done with weapons that are now legal and would be banned with this new law. Nothing.

It is not logical and above all it is extremely unfair.
It is unfair to the victims, it is unfair to the law abiding citizens who's hobby and property will be taken away.

Say NO to the draft proposal announced on 18 November 2015
Do not restrict semi-automatic firearms 'because they look like an automatic firearm'

We the Citizens demand that the EU brings focus on the real problems:
- That the external borders of the EU are not protected.
- Our population has groups in it that refuse to allign[sic] with our democratic core values and our culture. (Personally I'm not convinced that this is actually a real factor in terrorism {but it's part of the blurb with the petition on change.org so I wouldn't leave it out}: just because it seems to make sense that it would be, does not mean it is actually happening; for eg that these terrorists in Paris have actually been sheltered or aided by any group/s living in the EU fulltime because this is where they choose to live {which seems to me to be the spin the more rabid anti-immigrationists would put on the petition author's statement}, as opposed to a group who may have come here as an advance party with the specific intention of later harbouring terrorists {which is an entirely different kettle of fish and should be dealt with by our intelligence services, rather than the kind of draconian measures the aforementioned mouth-frothers would call for.})
- Illegal arms trade is rampant within the EU.
- Criminals and terrorists have easier access to illegal weapons then legal gun owners have access to legal arms.

That is the current situation and this new legislation does NOTHING to adress[sic] those problems.
The 18 November IP-15-6110 draft to amend 91/477/EEC is not only populistic[sic] in nature, it is also an insult to our civil liberties and to the intelligence of the EU citizens as a whole.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6110_en.htm

Sign The Petition!

My own view: Knee-jerk legislation almost, if not quite absolutely, always produces bad law. In this case however it is also the worst kind of cynical emotional manipulation to try to piggyback legislation which had been prepared previously onto a 'convenient' disaster as the only means likely to get it passed. It's not just an insult to EU citizens' civil liberties and intelligence, it's very disrespectful to the victims and their families.

 

[AirsoftTed]

I need to get some sleep, read the title 5 times before I realised it didn't say homophobes. Was expecting a totally different thread lmao

 

[Sitting Duck]

signed coz its so true what is said above

meant ian's post not teddy's ref to shirt lifters

 

[Rock-climby-Dave]

Thanks Ian. If you didn't post it I would have.

To my eyes the whole 'guns thing' is pretty straight forwards:

Have at it, yo. If you can afford it then you should be allowed to buy it, for any purpose.

Pistols and public carry (wether concealed or open) should be not only legal, but encouraged. Police cannot be on scene when you need them, whether that is a terrorist attack, mugging, rape or other violent crime. You know who ARE on scene? Joe Public. You know what a police officer is when he's not at work? Joe Public. These people are the same as the rest of us, so why should they be allowed to defend us if we cannot?

We all know what stops a bad guy with a gun. It's a good guy with a gun. Why not let that good guy that NEEDS a gun have a gun?

Take the Bataclan theatre as an example. The theatre has a capacity of 1500 people. There were 7 terrorists in Paris TOTAL. Lets assume that they all attacked the Bataclan (they didn't, several exploded themselves elsewhere for some reason, fucked if I know why, but I'll be fair and skew the numbers away from my side of the argument for this as I can't find a figure for the terrorists inside the theatre) assuming that 5% of those at the theatre were carrying (this figure is a lowball estimate -and very vague- for the total number of people who regularly concealed carry in the states. I use the states as they have good stats, have a similar economy/number of people who can afford firearms and a similar social ideology) so of the 1500 inside and 5% carrying?
Suddenly those 7 terrorists are met with 75 armed (and probably very pissed off that their concert is getting ruined) 'good guys'
Don't know about you guys, but with those figures, that 89 death toll is suddenly a bit lower.

and with attacks like these becoming more likely and frequent?

Interpol's Chief says that countries should be arming their citizens.

Criminals don't care if they break the law to obtain firearms they are using.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Edit (nothing above changed from original post) Monty's like was before this edit:

To those wishing to see more reasons, they are all well documented by people that are far greater wordsmiths than I.
http://www.gunfacts.info

I do believe my feelings on the statement 'the feelings of the masses should not infringe the rights of the few' are well documented around the forum at this point.

If you treat people like responsible adults, then that's, for the VAST majority, how they will behave.

Treat them like children, then that's, for the VAST majority, how they will behave.

I do believe people are best left alone from unnecessary government meddling in their lives and private business. Leave people to spend their free time and money in a way that they deem sensible, appropriate or heck, even just fun and they are happiest.

I would probably say that most of the governments you can call 'regimes' unironically disarmed their population first.

The more like America we can be, the better in my opinion (not necessarily the other mods or the forum offical stance, may I add)

 

[Zak Da Mack]

Knee jerk legislation, as Ian said, is pretty much almost always bad. But I can understand why they'd want to do it, although I would like to see some thought and research behind a law before it is bought in.

I didn't sign this particular petition though because they won't listen to it regardless. A bit like all the official petitions online. They'll just get blocked and ignored, not to mention that change doesn't even have any reason to be listened to.

To change the way we are used to living is allowing the terrorists win.

I also wouldn't say that being more like America is a good thing. They've had the worst gun crime in the developed world and I'd rather not be more like America if it meant that I feared going to school everyday and getting shot by a maniac because his background wasn't checked and could buy a gun at his local supermarket. Not only that, there is quite clearly a race problem in America and gays were only allowed to get married earlier this year.

 

[Esoterick]

I'd vote to block any "because terrorism" laws being passed.

Giving everyone guns because people definitely aren't stupid, not so much.

 

[BrightCandle]

I am no longer under the mistaken illusion that petitions or peacefull protesting will in any way change the direction the European or UK government will take. It doesn't matter how many people march on the streets in protest its not going to stop them empowering themselves and disarming us. The system doesn't work and it probably never has.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Thanks Ian. If you didn't post it I would have.

To my eyes the whole 'guns thing' is pretty straight forwards:

Have at it, yo. If you can afford it then you should be allowed to buy it, for any purpose.

Pistols and public carry (wether concealed or open) should be not only legal, but encouraged. Police cannot be on scene when you need them, whether that is a terrorist attack, mugging, rape or other violent crime. You know who ARE on scene? Joe Public. You know what a police officer is when he's not at work? Joe Public. These people are the same as the rest of us, so why should they be allowed to defend us if we cannot?

We all know what stops a bad guy with a gun. It's a good guy with a gun. Why not let that good guy that NEEDS a gun have a gun?

Take the Bataclan theatre as an example. The theatre has a capacity of 1500 people. There were 7 terrorists in Paris TOTAL. Lets assume that they all attacked the Bataclan (they didn't, several exploded themselves elsewhere for some reason, f*cked if I know why, but I'll be fair and skew the numbers away from my side of the argument for this as I can't find a figure for the terrorists inside the theatre) assuming that 5% of those at the theatre were carrying (this figure is a lowball estimate -and very vague- for the total number of people who regularly concealed carry in the states. I use the states as they have good stats, have a similar economy/number of people who can afford firearms and a similar social ideology) so of the 1500 inside and 5% carrying?

Suddenly those 7 terrorists are met with 75 armed (and probably very pissed off that their concert is getting ruined) 'good guys'

Don't know about you guys, but with those figures, that 89 death toll is suddenly a bit lower.

I appreciate the sentiment and the good spirit behind it, the idea of that little granny chasing off mugger with the .45 in her handbag, or a group of people rallying together to fight off the terrorists attacking them is nice.

But unfortunately it is a fantasy.

The reality is more guns means more deaths, because quite simply, that is the primary function of a gun, to impart death. So increasing the ability of people to kill each other, strangely enough just leads to more people killing each other.

If that granny might have a .45, why risk mugging her, just shoot her in the head and take the bag. The harsh reality is she should be grateful a criminal didn't expect her to have a gun and got she only mugged.

If that theatre had 100 people with guns out of the 1500 in there, then it might have indeed made an assault on it with guns less practical, but a terrorist is not going to go for a lesser option or think 'actually that's a bit too risky i quit'. It just means that it'd be easier to get guns, and there could have be 20 people with them running round Paris not 7, or that same seven just being on their way back across the border before the bombs go off and kill all 1500 people inside.

Again, i really really do appreciate the sentiment, and my guess is you yourself could perfectly handle gun ownership without killing your wife, killing yourself and the kids when she asks for a divorce, letting your kids shoot each other by mistake, mis-interpreting a situation and killing an unarmed person, or any of the fecking idiocy that people use the power to kill at a trigger click for.

I'd like to think you could be a perfectly good 'good guy with a gun'. However, you're sadly the minority, and most people don't even truly know what kind of person they are, good or bad until the opportunity/situation arises. More guns only creates more of such opportunities, and unfortunately far far more tragedy than heroism, with most such heroism only being done vs a situation made possible by more guns anyways.

However the one point you certainly loose my respect on is why you would want the UK to be more like America in this fashion? Their situation is worse on every single level, more crime, terrorism, killings, discrimination, poverty, slavery. You must like the romantic idea of having the power to kill someone if you deem it necessary, and freedom to do whatever you like, more than you have the urge to face the reality of their situation. Unfortunately in a society of millions of people you simply don't deserve that freedom/power as there is not enough benefit to society by you having it, only more risk and more negative impact.

Again sorry to be harsh, i really do appreciate the romantic sentiment of good-guns with guns, i go even further and dream of a world where a gun isn't necessary cos everyone's a good guy. There's not a single living creature on this planet you can't sort out with a pointy stick, that's why we're here, and that's as far as available killing technology should go in my opinion. I would be happier if guns were completely outlawed for private ownership in the UK, as there is no real benefit to society by them existing, and the potential for tragedy far outweighs any potential benefit in random situations.

 

[Zak Da Mack]

I am no longer under the mistaken illusion that petitions or peacefull protesting will in any way change the direction the European or UK government will take. It doesn't matter how many people march on the streets in protest its not going to stop them empowering themselves and disarming us. The system doesn't work and it probably never has.

You're right in the sense that the system doesn't work. It only really works if you have someone who really cares about what the people think in power.

However, I don't believe in the conspiracy that the government is trying to completely control us. That's in my eyes really stupid. Besides, people worrying about their guns getting taken away should be more worried about organisations such as GCHQ and the NSA who can see almost everything they are doing. The belief that some guns would save us all is a lie.

Back on topic, I don't believe airsoft so too big a deal on a politicians radar. A lot of us are a tight knit community as well who would look out for the sport and I'm sure would report anyone who could damage the name of airsoft.

Didn't someone on AF-UK send a letter to the ACPO asking about airsoft guns? IIRC, they didn't have any intention or even a slight thought as to banning or restricting the sale of airsoft guns.

 

[Rock-climby-Dave]

Kurtz, respectfully, I am going to pick apart the points given. Many people are in the same boat as yourself and like the romanticised idea, but look at poor examples cherry picked by a mostly anti-gun media over here.

Rather than use quotes a lot (as you should in most cases), lines in bold are posted by others(in this case mostly Colonel Kurtz) with my response in standard lettering directly below it:

Parts in red are added (not edits) made after a re-read

The reality is more guns means more deaths, because quite simply, that is the primary function of a gun, to impart death.

Guns are simply a tool. In the same way a hammer has a use and a guitar has a use (smacking nails and playing sweet riffs). The function of a gun is simply to throw a projectile with massive energy accurately as far as possible. Obviously, they do this very well. You wouldn't use the wrong tool for the job would you. Firearms are used for sporting purposes, pest control, self defence and in some cases, sadly used to harm other humans. My firearms have never killed anyone. Nor have the huge majority (neigh, all. Possible exception of an Enfield, but that would have been in a legal war) of the firearms I have ever handled.

So increasing the ability of people to kill each other, strangely enough just leads to more people killing each other.

People who are happy to kill someone are going to kill them regardless of access to firearms. Most people just want to get about their lawful business with as little interaction with outsiders as possible. I'll touch again on this later. Things that we know are bad being made legal doesn't mean everyone suddenly does those things. To ban or outlaw an item is to simply relinquish control of it to the black market. Portugal decriminalised drug use in 2001 and since then have NOT seen an increase in drug use, yet HAVE seen a decrease in drug related issues like ODs and STD transmission. This is because we all know drugs are bad (m'kay). As responsible adults the citizens of portugal that weren't crack heads before didn't go out and buy a whole bunch of smack just because it wasn't a criminal offence anymore. In the same way, just because now that you have the ability to 'pop a cap in someones ass' you won't because that's just a terrible idea.

If that granny might have a .45, why risk mugging her, just shoot her in the head and take the bag. The harsh reality is she should be grateful a criminal didn't expect her to have a gun and got she only mugged.

Because most muggers are NOT murderers. Mugging happens for an awful lot of reasons, murder, less so. Muggings are mostly random. Murders are often done by people you know. The latter half of that statement comes very close to victim blaming, frankly I think we can agree that it was potentially said in poor taste. I do see what you're going for though, I disagree. The expectation of a gun isn't there. The POSSIBILITY IS. If she didn't have a gun, suddenly it's a very, very different set of circumstances (cold blooded random murder vs legitimate self defence going south for victim). Not many people would instigate a firefight as guns are an excellent equaliser. And you simply don't know if the opponent is more equal than you until it is too late.

If that theatre had 100 people with guns out of the 1500 in there, then it might have indeed made an assault on it with guns less practical, but a terrorist is not going to go for a lesser option or think 'actually that's a bit too risky i quit'. It just means that it'd be easier to get guns, and there could have be 20 people with them running round Paris not 7, or that same seven just being on their way back across the border before the bombs go off and kill all 1500 people inside.

The main point I think you're making here is that "believing the opposition to be armed would have lead to more attackers" (please tell me if that isn't correct) however, I would hazard a guess that they would have liked more but 7 is the maximum number of people willing to commit such an atrocity at that time. Bombs are tricky, however, certainly all gigs I have been to, bags have been searched.
The point I was making really there was that if the fight was 75vs7 the death toll would have been lower. Well worth it in my eyes.

Again, i really really do appreciate the sentiment, and my guess is you yourself could perfectly handle gun ownership without killing your wife, killing yourself and the kids when she asks for a divorce, letting your kids shoot each other by mistake, mis-interpreting a situation and killing an unarmed person, or any of the fecking idiocy that people use the power to kill at a trigger click for.

Thanks man.

I'd like to think you could be a perfectly good 'good guy with a gun'. However, you're sadly the minority, and most people don't even truly know what kind of person they are, good or bad until the opportunity/situation arises. More guns only creates more of such opportunities, and unfortunately far far more tragedy than heroism, with most such heroism only being done vs a situation made possible by more guns anyways.

I think most people know whether they are 'good' or 'bad' (although poor terms really) I would say most people are 'good' that is to say, don't commit violent acts against others and keep themselves to themselves. those that fall into 'bad' tend to fall into categories such as 'murderer, rapist, mugger, terrorist' As for creating more opportunities, I don't think so. Again goes back to people wanting a quiet life free from oppression. You COULD smack everyone you meet around the face, but you don't. Why? because of the consequences that happen, assault charges, potentially serious injuries to someone you don't know deserve it. Yes, someone cut you up in traffic, you COULD ram their car with yours, but why don't you? because you, and everyone else who doesn't ram their car into someone who cuts them up is a rational human being with thoughts and feelings. It's very, very, very easy to assume everyone is thick as shit, but EVERYONE thinks they have common sense, most will demonstrate that they do.

Their situation is worse on every single level, more crime, terrorism, killings, discrimination, poverty, slavery.
Most of this crime/killings relate to gangs in very few areas of the country. Pull those HUGE spikes in crime from statistics and you've suddenly got a very safe country. We do not have these slum areas over here, so this is simply a non-issue (regarding our own firearms laws, obviously it's AN issue.) The other areas you highlight relate to social issues, rather than providing firearms. I don't have an answer for those, sadly, but I feel the rule of 'Don't be a dick. Are you being a dick? Stop being a dick' applies.

You must like the romantic idea of having the power to kill someone if you deem it necessary
Ending a human life, good guy or bad guy is certainly not something to be romanticised. I simply believe that I should be allowed to defend myself or others around me from harm. If that requires lethal force, so be it. Because guns are very good at killing they make fantastic equalisers. I'm not exactly a built guy, if some big fucker decided he wanted my wallet, he'd probably get it. Introduce a firearm and suddenly his physical size simply is irrelevant, at that point the person most willing to shoot the other will, more often than not, win. As I said earlier, muggers are not murderers, he's unlikely to want to kill me for my wallet. He's demonstrated himself to be a bad guy (by mugging me) so I'm pretty happy to pull that trigger. If this argument doesn't work, by all means replace 'me and my' with 'your daughter' and 'wallet' with.... you get the picture.

[You must like the romantic idea of having the] freedom to do whatever you like,
You don't? What are we without our freedom? The more individual freedom we have the better.

Unfortunately in a society of millions of people you simply don't deserve that freedom/power as there is not enough benefit to society by you having it, only more risk and more negative impact.
Far more firearms are used in self defence than to commit crime in the USA. To say I do not deserve the freedom is ridiculous, I'm not going to harm anyone by using a self loading rifle at the range, or by competing in practical pistol with full bore pistols. I'm not going to harm anyone who doesn't deserve harming by concealed carrying. Hopefully I could CC from tomorrow until the day I die at 85 having never had to use it, but bad people exist in the same world that I live in, and I WILL NOT let bad people dictate how I live my life. I WILL NOT live in fear.

i go even further and dream of a world where a gun isn't necessary cos everyone's a good guy.
again, we go back to the original point I made where we simply use firearms for recreational and sporting uses. Guns are fun, if you've never shot one I would HIGHLY recommend getting out and seeing what you're missing. Go claybusting with some mates one weekend (maybe some other airsofters as a nice way to stay in contact in the grim winter months away from play)

There's not a single living creature on this planet you can't sort out with a pointy stick, that's why we're here,
But we're also not allowed to carry a pointy stick (or ANY object) in the UK for self defence, if you do it is considered an offensive weapon. No pepper spray, no tasers (section 5 firearms, MANDATORY prison sentences) or other less lethal devices. Also, don't know about you but I'd rather not take on a buffalo with a pointy stick.

that's as far as available killing technology should go in my opinion. I would be happier if guns were completely outlawed for private ownership in the UK, as there is no real benefit to society by them existing
Again, it's not killing technology, it's hole punching tech. I would NOT be happy if guns were outlawed. How would you control pests, hunt for meat? What would you suggest I do instead of compete in practical shooting or long range target shooting? What about people who collect interesting or rare pieces? They don't WANT to play football, they WANT to shoot. It's worth the hassle to shooters to do all of the hoop-jumping required here to use firearms safely and legally. and it is FAR safer than horse riding or playing football. IPSC style shooting is one of the safest activities you can participate in.
No Benefit to society? Because of gunshot wounds, we have fantastic medical care. Because of the scale we can wage war thanks to firearms a HUGE proportion of our technological advances owe themselves to trying to kill the french/the germans/the soviets and most recently brown people more efficiently and with lesser loss of life on our side.

and the potential for tragedy far outweighs any potential benefit in random situations.
'Don't do anything because I might get injured.' Nah, I'd rather live, be free and be happy. Also, an untrue, unbacked claim. Firearms are used FAR more in self defence in the states than in roberies etc. not to mention that most crimes are committed with illegal firearms. Certainly the most recent Paris attacks were committed with firearms that are already banned across the whole EU.

~Fin.
for Kurtz points anyway. Now to Zak:

You're right in the sense that the system doesn't work. It only really works if you have someone who really cares about what the people think in power.
It's not just those in power. There are plenty of people who like the idea of individual freedom who are NOT shooters. If THEY see how shooters are treated then we've gained a lot of voices.

However, I don't believe in the conspiracy that the government is trying to completely control us. That's in my eyes really stupid.
Sorry to be a bit sarcastic with this one: 'How to end up living under a regime in 1 simple step, the new best seller from ZakDaMack'
If you don't constantly push for freedom, then it gets eroded bit by bit until you suddenly have none.

Besides, people worrying about their guns getting taken away should be more worried about organisations such as GCHQ and the NSA who can see almost everything they are doing.
Who says we aren't worried by this? Guns are just a good way to see how your government treats its citizens. link here for recent and well worded article

The belief that some guns would save us all is a lie.
Unsubstantiated claim. Also straight up wrong. besides, I don't want 'some' guns. we have 'some' guns in the police and it's not overly effective (and that's before another potential wave of cuts to said police). What I want is 'many' guns. Where 5-10% of the population regularly carry. Japan didn't invade the USA mainland for exactly this reason (behind every blade of grass is a gun came from some Japanese guy, I don't know who, I'm not a history graduate)

Back on topic, I don't believe airsoft so too big a deal on a politicians radar. A lot of us are a tight knit community as well who would look out for the sport and I'm sure would report anyone who could damage the name of airsoft.

We'll be sent under the wheels of the freedomcrusher9000 that is knee jerk lawmaking before shotgun shooters and the tweed brigade. You also state IN THE SAME POST that (not exact wording, my interpretation of your meaning):


The goverment do not care how many people protest against a law they want, it'll happen anyway

and

we're safe from bans as we've got a big, but tightly knit community.

Didn't someone on AF-UK send a letter to the ACPO asking about airsoft guns? IIRC, they didn't have any intention or even a slight thought as to banning or restricting the sale of airsoft guns.

It's not ACPO trying this shit. It's the European Commission. They are unelected and almost entirely unaccountable. They are the exact reason big government is bad.

I know I hold some potentially antagonistic views, but I believe I can justify having them with reasons beyond 'muh feelings' or 'I dont like that thing I have no knowledge of'

TL;DR You're wrong and here's why.

Edit: Fuck me, I'm glad that essay is over. I've been here for like an hour.

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

Edit: f*ck me, I'm glad that essay is over. I've been here for like an hour.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Lovely well written essay, but unfortunately although I agree whole heartedly its all a waste of time.The people making the laws and calling the shots are so far removed from reality its not even funny.

The main reason the powers that be dont want guns in the hands of civilians is because one day those civilians might realise that the public servants are really only the servants of the rich and powerful.

Joe public can be controlled as long as the people in charge are the ones wielding the big stick. Having a voice doesnt matter because the ones who need to hear it are sipping tea and brandy behind a barricade of armed officers feeling safe and omnipotent. Meanwhile the poor officers who get the bricks thrown at them are being screwed over by the people they are protecting.

We are meant to elect people who run the country on our behalf but that again is a smokescreen. MP's get lots of privileges that are denied to the ordinary folk that they are meant to be in the employment of.

Nothing has changed since medieval days we have just learnt to put a shinier picture on it.

Until everybody says enough is enough and we get a government of real people we will always be screwed over.

Scrap the house of lords get rid of the peers and elect people who have lived in the real world. Until that happens we dont really have a say no matter what petition you sign.

 

[Rock-climby-Dave]

Preaching to the choir, mate.

 

[AirsoftTed]

I too would like to see gun ownership made more accessible and self defence friendly but sadly I think now the UK has spent too long against the idea. I'm not sure when Dunblane happened but am I right in thinking it was mid 80s and led to the ban on handguns? If so, we're approaching two generations who have grown into adult hood without a firearm culture in the UK. I'm 19 and I haven't met a single person in real life who has the slightest clue about firearms. Whilst you or I would be fairly competent in handling them, I reckon half the people I went to school with would end up shooting themselves in the foot or something stupid.

The self defence laws as you mentioned also handicap us greatly, after spending your life basically vulnerable if you then had the power to just drop a threat, I honestly would in the heat of the moment - so while that is a potential death who's to say I should have let them stab me then kill me? Bollocks to that. I remember parents buying their children stab proof vests to go to school in and play outside in down here in London. Is the UK really that much safer than the USA? Proportionately there are a load more people hence a load more crime , what do you expect ? They can't have police and cctv everywhere so there's more opportunity for crime than here. I can't see us suddenly having guns making crime rise. For one it would be guaranteed to fall if possession , manufacture etc were no longer crimes .

I'd love to see us given the right to bear arms but I think it would be a very long process, starting with stuff like familiarisation with firearms safety from a primary school age in an attempt to bring back a firearms culture where people actually know what the hell they're talking about instead of " guns am bad mr media man tell me so and dem people died"

I was on a security course today and the trainer who works part time as a uber driver to get extra cash for Christmas told us he had an executive from the BBC in his car. He asked him why the media only covers certain topics and pushes certain ideas. Unsurprisingly he was told there's someone at the very top who says what news goes in, and what news goes out. So much for free press eh? The government doesn't want us to have anyway of rebelling efficiently , it goes against their own self interests of keeping power.

As an example , we were told to all close our eyes. He then said " if I say terrorist, what image do you see?" Personally I must be an exception because I just saw the black of my eyelids because I'm aware anyone can be a terrorist as it's simply a word for someone who imposes terror on another and is therefore subjective , but the rest of the people all said stuff along the lines of, Osama bin Laden, beards, turbans and Middle Eastern people- that's the image they've been given for the past 16 years or so.

 

[Fumps]

**face palm***

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

I appreciate the detailed response, think we'll have to agree to disagree on most of it, but at least we've both put enough time and thought into it to both be valid opinions!

The function of a gun is simply to throw a projectile with massive energy accurately as far as possible.

A gun is a weapon more than a tool, unless you define a weapon as a tool for imparting death/injury and that's round in a circle to the same point - it being a killing tool. There are sporting applications for most weapons, but they are still weapons and their primary function is still to kill/injure living things (mostly people).

People who are happy to kill someone are going to kill them regardless of access to firearms.

Indeed they might, but few people are killed out of a pre-meditated logical decision, they are killed in frenzied moments of emotion where logic has no reach. For those that do want to kill people in a pre-meditated way; school massacres in the US a the best example here; a crazy kid could probably knife a couple of people before they got tackled, or murder dozens with a gun because it's simply that much more efficient killing-tool. For those that suffer an emotional breakdown to the degree where they become violent, guns only provide them with the opportunity to make more grave a mistake (good example here a certain south-african athlete, whether you think he went nuts and shot his gf deliberately, or mistakenly out of fear, without a gun he wouldn't have killed anyone)

I would hazard a guess that they would have liked more but 7 is the maximum number of people willing to commit such an atrocity at that time.

I don't think we can really argue our own 'whatif' guesses against each other, but i remain confident that no amount of armed civilians will deter or reduce the number of people killed by foreign terrorists, and more guns in circulation can only increase the potential for native terrorism (school massacres etc)

As for creating more opportunities, I don't think so. Again goes back to people wanting a quiet life free from oppression. You COULD smack everyone you meet around the face, but you don't. Why? because of the consequences that happen, assault charges, potentially serious injuries to someone you don't know deserve it. Yes, someone cut you up in traffic, you COULD ram their car with yours, but why don't you? because you, and everyone else who doesn't ram their car into someone who cuts them up is a rational human being with thoughts and feelings. It's very, very, very easy to assume everyone is thick as sh*t, but EVERYONE thinks they have common sense, most will demonstrate that they do.

Indeed you have to be a total retard to not at least appreciate the logic of act vs consequence and what is good or bad. However; every single one of those bad actions you give as an example is done by someone every day, in an act of emotion not logic. Therefore if we had guns in general circulation, I am certain someone would get killed by one in an act of emotion not logic everyday/week like in the US.


Most of this crime/killings relate to gangs in very few areas of the country.

Gangs etc are the extreme of gun crime, just as middle-class gated communities are the extreme of safety. These areas are both a minority, although there being far far far more areas of impoverished crime than safe suburbia. However there's plenty of gun-crime and deaths/injuries in between. You certainly have it the wrong way round and there are very few areas of the US which don't have gun related deaths, injuries or crime on a regular basis. Looking at their national statistics, it just seems to be the middle-class are more likely to shoot themselves or their family, rather than someone elses.


For the closing summary; I also agree that killing and war has provided the main motivation for mankind to enter the modern age of anthropy. I just think now we're here, we should really find better motivation and not waste so much time and resources on it. Space is a perfect example; without the cold-war they'd never bothered making rockets powerful enough to drop a continent busting nuke on the other-side of the world, let alone strapped a few together and fired them at the moon with some astronauts on top for a good PR stunt... I guess it's a matter or priorities, and i think mankind could progress so much further if we got ours right, rather than just reaping the occasional side-effect/benefit of otherwise entirely foolish endeavors.

 

[Rock-climby-Dave]

Quick link to an interesting article with some links out of it to sources etc.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/its-britain-not-america-that-has-debate-over-gun-ownership-wrong-1530102

There are sporting applications for most weapons, but they are still weapons and their primary function is still to kill/injure living things (mostly people).

My firearms are NOT weapons. I (and google) define weapon as 'a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.' My, and the huge majority of other privately held firearms DO NOT fall into that category. Sure, they'd be a good make-shift weapon, but so would a hammer, or a baseball bat, or a really pointy guitar. They are simply sporting equipment.

For those that do want to kill people in a pre-meditated way; school massacres in the US a the best example here

No, they're not. 92% of mass murders (defined by FBI as 3+ dead) in the US are committed in gun-free zones, such as schools, libraries, chrurches etc. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/'>source

besides which Mass murders make up a relatively small percentage of the total murders. Yes, they are upsetting because of the usually large reported casualty rates of innocent people, but they are not how most killings take place. (predominantly gang on gang in deprived areas)

I don't think we can really argue our own 'whatif' guesses against each other, but i remain confident that no amount of armed civilians will deter or reduce the number of people killed by foreign terrorists, and more guns in circulation can only increase the potential for native terrorism (school massacres etc)

I agree on the whatif statement, so far we've avoided strawman and ad-hominem arguments pretty well, let's keep it that way.

Arming civilians can have 2 outcomes towards terrorism:
1. Deter terrorists: probably not hugely likely to be fair, If it did, excellent job done, if not then we haven't lost anything for trying. In this case we Either gain security or security levels do not change.

2. Not deter them, but provide immediate 'good guy' capable of defence of innocent life on the scene. This prevents terrorists from simply walking up to people and executing them, something that did occur in Paris. There IS CCTV evidence of this out there. In this case Safety levels have increased.

However; every single one of those bad actions you give as an example is done by someone every day, in an act of emotion not logic. Therefore if we had guns in general circulation, I am certain someone would get killed by one in an act of emotion not logic everyday/week like in the US.

Yes, people can be emotional. Sadly I cannot find any sources (looking now for half an hour) of information on 'random murders' Obviously, though, If someone DID escalate a situation or argument with a weapon, you would be fully within your right to diffuse the situation with swift and judicial use of a carried firearm (or taser, mace, whatever your choice of protection is) for self defence.

The lack of data on this suggests to me that these events are so small in number that they are simply a non-issue. If you DO find some stats, I'd love to see them, though.

The only useful info I can find states: source

People with concealed carry licenses are:

• 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
• 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

Gangs etc are the extreme of gun crime, just as middle-class gated communities are the extreme of safety. These areas are both a minority, although there being far far far more areas of impoverished crime than safe suburbia. However there's plenty of gun-crime and deaths/injuries in between. You certainly have it the wrong way round and there are very few areas of the US which don't have gun related deaths, injuries or crime on a regular basis.

I THINK the point here is that we should take the two extremes out of the stats? I'm not sure, again, correct If I'm wrong.

To address that point I would say that of the 2 extremes, we only really have 1, and that is 'middle class safe area' we simply don't have the massive gangs that cause problems in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, DC to name a few.

Again, a link to gunfacts: http://www.gunfacts.info

Closing statement on this part:

There are 3 kinds of stance you can take on firearms availability:

For: gain their hobby back and the security offered by allowing CC and self defence, alongside this they will boost the economy. Firearms aren't cheap and they are worth $42bn in the US economy. I would not expect us to gain this value, but it gives an idea of the numbers involved in firearms. http://www.nssf.org/impact/

Anti: They lost the argument, probably will continue to campaign against firearms. They will be able to do this safely thanks to at worst a continuation of current crime rates, at best a decrease in violent crime.

Completely indifferent: Does not effect. Crime rates again remain the same or decrease, so whilst indifferent are likely to have gained.

 

[Fumps]

Quick link to an interesting article with some links out of it to sources etc.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/its-britain-not-america-that-has-debate-over-gun-ownership-wrong-1530102

There are sporting applications for most weapons, but they are still weapons and their primary function is still to kill/injure living things (mostly people).

My firearms are NOT weapons. I (and google) define weapon as 'a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.' My, and the huge majority of other privately held firearms DO NOT fall into that category. Sure, they'd be a good make-shift weapon, but so would a hammer, or a baseball bat, or a really pointy guitar. They are simply sporting equipment.

Ace.....love it :lol:

 

[Ian_Gere]

I find myself completely conflicted about ownership of firearms. While i am very sympathetic to Dave's stance, if for no other reason than that my general outlook is Libertarian, I also think that the issue is wider than simply "guns=security vs guns=menace" and my conclusions leave me feeling very uneasy. For e.g. why is it that there is more per capita gun ownership in Canada than the USA and exponentially less violent crime in general, gun crime specifically? How about Switzerland where it's the law that every household has to have a firearm? I would suggest that the reason is because the USA has very poor social safety nets, which leads to a much more intense competition between individuals*, which in general effect raises the baseline of animosity, therefore it takes less hassle between people for 1 of them to wig out...

*I've seen this in the behaviour of Americans i've known who have spent periods of time longer than just a few months living here: when they go home for Thanksgiving and Xmas, say, and return their stress level jumps remarkably - it takes them a month, maybe 6 weeks, to chill out.

However what makes me uneasy is that, ever since Thatcher, we have been placed on a path which leads, seemingly inexorably, towards becoming ever more like the USA. Wages are frozen or falling in real terms, versus the cost of living; the gap between rich and poor has never been greater since medieval times; many frontline services which our poorest rely on for help which is the difference between simple poverty and being trapped in hopeless poverty have been cut or will be soon (as the Tories squeeze local government budgets); if the Tories have their way we will see "workfare" and foodstamps; we are in the grip of a cross-party broad ideology which places "The Holy Market" as the prime mover in all things, yet it is an indisputable fact that no country has ever got out of recession/depression without massive government mandated infrastructure spending (which includes social infrastructure), but we are trapped in austerity instead.

There are plenty of people in the UK of whom i would feel afraid if i thought they may be habitually armed: people like Britain First, the EDL, etc., but if they were also more stressed by their economic circumstances, I'd seriously consider emigrating. Worse though is that if we the people could be habitually armed, the police would be too and that worries me an awful lot - many of them are thugs with badges as it is, put pistols in their hands and i'm sure it'd end badly.

I love the idea that it is the government who should be afraid of the people, not the other way around; that an armed populace is in a position to remove a despotic government. However look at what has happened in the USA: if there was ever a time when they could have been expected to use the power that being armed gave them, it was when JFK was assassinated... er, no, not a chance... why? Maintaining a grip on power is now a science and propaganda is its modus operandi.

My conclusion then is that I feel that when it comes to ownership of firearms the status quo should be preserved rather than more restrictions be enacted - I can't make my mind up, so no change is best. More data may move me one way or the other, but for now I urge you all to sign the petition. You may be right that a petition will not affect the outcome of the proposed changes to law, however one thing we can be absolutely certain will not affect it is if you do nothing. It takes moments - please sign it!

 

[jcheeseright]

I'd say that using the USA as an example for gun ownership is a terrible way to look at it, that's like looking at Mauritania for child mortality and literacy... never going to end well.

Instead why not have a look at Finland, or Switzerland, or even Canada, all of those countries have extraordinarily relaxed gun laws and extraordinarily low gun-crime rates.

America's gun problem is a cultural problem, not a legislative problem.

 

[Rock-climby-Dave]

Looking at the states for Firearm Ownership is GOOD.

Looking at the states for social aspects.... less so.

TBH, I think Ian nailed the social thing pretty well.

To take this away from CC and Self defence, what about private ownership for sporting/collecting/hooraygiggleswitchisfun reasons?