US - Airsoft under threat?

Dan Robinson said:
We have only had nine since Dunblane and of those some didn't have any fatalities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True. But in the preceding 27 years to Dunblane there were 17. 3 were terrorism. 1 was in Northern Ireland, where the law remains the same.
So arguably, 12. The removal of access to pistols has reduced the occurrance by 3 in a nearly thirty year period. 
Don't get me wrong, three fewer is good. 

BUT

People who are going to do bad things are going to do bad things.
If you are of a mind to kill people, you are willing to break the law. Therefore the legality of access to firearms is irrelevant to you.
In the UK nearly all gun crime is committed with illegally held firearms. 
The process of obtaining and keeping firearms in the UK is amongst the most stringent in the world, when applied correctly. There are failures, as in Plymouth, where the shooter should not have had a firearm. Even his own mother had pleaded with the Police to not return his gun. Failure to apply the law will not be changed by changing the law.
Of course, you could outlaw all firearms. That means bye bye RIFS too. 
So long to air rifles, catapults, bows, crossbows.... stones? Screwdrivers? Chainsaws... The list is endless.

If it's dangerous, it should be banned. There is more chance of you dying in the UK by crossing the road than there is of you being shot.
If it's dangerous, should it be banned? Should we live our lives in cotton wool? No. That would be boring. 
 

As the philosopher DMX once said
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

p.s. apologies for the ramble, three kids and 4 dogs impeding concentration.
p.p.s dogs kill people sometimes. They should probably all be banned.
p.p.s kids kill people. They should probably be banned too.
p.p.p.s Grown ups kill people... oh ffs

 
sonofsammo said:
So long to air rifles, catapults, bows, crossbows.... stones? Screwdrivers? Chainsaws... The list is endless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Well, the existing list is pretty long.  Private ownership, in your own home, is currently a crime for:

Knuckledusters; sword-sticks; hand-claws; belt-buckle knives; shuriken; butterfly knives; telescopic batons; blow-guns[1]; kusari-gama; kyoketsu shoge; kusari[2]; any disguised knife; ceramic knives other than cooking knives; any "straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheon (sometimes known as a baton)"[3]; a sword with a blade over 50cm but only if curved; any blade with a cutting edge and serrated edge but only if it has an image or words that suggest it is to be used for the purposes of violence; or a spiral knife with two or more cutting edges in a helix.

...and breathe.

It's genuinely a wonder that they haven't got around to crossbows yet.

[1] A tube

[2] A string with something tied to both ends.

[3] A stick!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colin Allen said:
I suspect that there are so many guns in circulation in the USA that you are truly fucked.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


? This. I can't think of a single scenario that successfully moves the US away from tens of thousands of innocent people giving their life every year just so that others can have the right to own a gun on the off-chance they need to overthrow the government - let's not get into the debate that when they had the chance they opted to fight to keep a corrupt government in power, the exact opposite of what the second amendment is all about.

 
Madhouse said:
let's not get into the debate that when they had the chance they opted to fight to keep a corrupt government in power
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


"Bad news from the Colonies, your majesty."

7osii8.jpg


 
Dan Robinson said:
  Switzerland is a bit of an anomaly in that they still have conscription, which I think is a good idea, but are also a neutral country - their take on potential invasions is fairly unique. However, they average less than one mass shooting per year.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Have you seen the requirements in Switzerland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland despite being one of the most liberal sets of legislation, they have much tighter control on the sale of ammunition and the actual use of guns.

The issue in the US isn't the guns, it's the fetishisation of gun culture among a relatively small section of society and the huge number of guns in the hands of criminals. Add to that a lobbying movement with huge coffers that has a vested interest in maintaining a multi-billion dollar industry and you end up with a country that offers little more than hopes and prayers when school kids get shot but woe betide you if you're not a straight, white, conservative.

I think the most telling stories about guns come from people that have left the US for other countries and then one day suddenly realised that actually, maybe the rest of the world was right after all!

 
Leo Greer said:
This is not a hard fact, but cities and areas with stricter gun laws tend to be far less safe. I have been to every state and almost every major city in the USA—the areas that make it hard for citizens to defend themselves experience more violent crime. This is what I’ve seen from personal experience. Anyone can twist numbers to say what they want.

Obviously there are people in the world and even in my city that I wouldn’t hand a loaded handgun to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


You're correct it's not a hard fact. It's not even a soft and squishy fact, when you look at gun deaths per capita by state and compared to the level of firearm legislation it's a very different picture https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-control-measures-to-gun-related-homicides-by-state/

Yes, lies, damned lies and statistics, but when there is such an overwhelming volume of evidence in support of better gun control I'm still gobsmacked how many people say more gun laws make places LESS safe.

As to your other point, from what I've gathered it seems that most of the people in favour of tighter gun control want just this; to stop that guy getting his hands on a gun. This pretty much sums it up:



 
53 minutes ago, Lozart said:



You're correct it's not a hard fact. It's not even a soft and squishy fact, when you look at gun deaths per capita by state and compared to the level of firearm legislation it's a very different picture https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-control-measures-to-gun-related-homicides-by-state/

Yes, lies, damned lies and statistics, but when there is such an overwhelming volume of evidence in support of better gun control I'm still gobsmacked how many people say more gun laws make places LESS safe.

As to your other point, from what I've gathered it seems that most of the people in favour of tighter gun control want just this; to stop that guy getting his hands on a gun. This pretty much sums it up:

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Stricter guns laws don’t necessarily make places less or more safe. They make me and my family less safe by removing our ability to defend ourselves if the worst should happen. I.e. they remove power from law abiding citizens. Those with malicious intent will, of course, ignore gun control laws.

Imagine, for a moment, if we enacted nuclear war gun laws. No guns for citizens, ever. At all. What happens? Criminals still have guns. How on earth does disarming your law abiding citizens help with criminals?

Maybe, over enough time, you’d be able to catch every criminal and find every hidden gun. But how many years is that? How many years of criminals knowing that a gun gives them power over any citizen who turned theirs in? Even assuming citizens retain the right to carry things like mace, switchblades, etc, etc.

In America, we’ve seen a wave of increase in “big government”. Many will disagree with me here, but I just don’t believe that the government really wants to help me, or any citizens really. They’re people, and as such they have all manner of motivations, chief of which is often money. Public office pays almost nothing—why, then, can an official enter office an ordinary citizen and leave extraordinarily rich? Thus, to some of us, government moves affecting gun control (or any increased control) look like power plays. When we assume that everyone has the chance to be corrupt, and everyone could simply be going for money, then we have to question the media, government, everything.

Sorry, “fact” is the wrong word. Coincidence is a better one. Gun death numbers have no bearing on how safe you are walking down a certain street in a certain city. It stand out to me how unsafe cities like Chicago and Portland are compared to large cities in other states with different laws.

 
Leo Greer said:
Stricter guns laws don’t necessarily make places less or more safe. They make me and my family less safe by removing our ability to defend ourselves if the worst should happen. I.e. they remove power from law abiding citizens. Those with malicious intent will, of course, ignore gun control laws.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You do realise that law abiding citizens carrying guns isn't the deterrent you think it is. Infact it's going to make the criminal more likely to carry and use a gun in crimes

 
rocketdogbert said:
It’s called legislation creep. A prime current example is AI, one country starts talking about trying to legislate, other partner countries do the same.

Firearms even more so, as a large proportion of the UK population seem to think (as you appear to) that “nobody needs a firearm”.

In response to that, way more legally held cars kill and injure people in the UK than firearms. Almost nobody has a legitimate reason to own a car. Get a bus and/or a train.

Also, see my first point “First they came for the communists….”

Don’t f****** try and tell me what’s legitimate and what’s not in my life. ****
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pull your head in, old boy; your angry man syndrome is showing.

AI legislation and firearms legislation are two completely different situations.  The former is a new and rapidly developing area and all governments are looking at its potential impact and how to prevent it growing out of control; it is not a case of "follow my leader".

Do you really think that a US requirement to have markings on imitation firearms and some form of testing programme for the same is going to impact your right to own a firearm in the UK?

I did NOT say that nobody needs a firearm; I said that, outside a few legitimate reasons, nobody in the UK needs a firearm; if you are going to argue with me, at least try to argue with what I have said.  I stand by what I said; there are very few people in the UK who need a firearm.

Your car argument is utterly infantile; cars serve a useful purpose in transporting people.  As such, they are useful tools.  In the UK, firearms are only useful tools for very, very few people.

Comparing airsofters with Dietrich Bonhoeffer is utterly ridiculous and massively insulting to someone who had the guts to stand up to one of the most vile regimes in modern history.  Give your head a shake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anger and self control issues; hopefully, he does not have a FAC.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top