Uk gun laws, what the heck is wrong with this picture?

[graywolf624]

Gun laws alert targets owners


OWNERS of self-contained air cartridge guns were told today they would face a minimum of five years’ imprisonment if they failed to get a firearms certificate by the end of this month.

The tough new measures come as part of a government crackdown on the weapons.

Failure to secure a firearms certificate will lead to the new five-year mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a prohibited firearm introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

So they are going to throw people in jail for 5 years if they don't register their bb guns? I understand the premise for gun control(even if I don't agree with it), but isn't this a tad excessive? Its not like your going to hold someone up with a bb gun..

[SFDMALEX]

Whata fuck is this world turning into? This is just plain retarted. They got nothing else to do but come up with this fucked up shit???

[gis]

Gun laws alert targets owners


OWNERS of self-contained air cartridge guns were told today they would face a minimum of five years’ imprisonment if they failed to get a firearms certificate by the end of this month.

The tough new measures come as part of a government crackdown on the weapons.

Failure to secure a firearms certificate will lead to the new five-year mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a prohibited firearm introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Its not like your going to hold someone up with a bb gun..

beleive me they do,that has happened quite a few times here in the UK to my knowledge,about a year ago a post office here got held up for cash with a BB shotgun

[nthfinity]

oh my god...... mabey more people should be allowed to have guns out there... its not like its the us with 10,000+ gun deaths per year, vs. canada with only 150ish....

[RC45]

Gun laws alert targets owners


OWNERS of self-contained air cartridge guns were told today they would face a minimum of five years’ imprisonment if they failed to get a firearms certificate by the end of this month.

The tough new measures come as part of a government crackdown on the weapons.

Failure to secure a firearms certificate will lead to the new five-year mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a prohibited firearm introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Its not like your going to hold someone up with a bb gun..

beleive me they do,that has happened quite a few times here in the UK to my knowledge,about a year ago a post office here got held up for cash with a BB shotgun

THat;s the beauty of Texas - I would like to see the poor fuck try hold up a place with a BB Gun...

The United Kingdom (and many other "gun free" countries) has proven the saying "outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns" to be very very true.

[BADMIHAI]

The United Kingdom (and many other "gun free" countries) has proven the saying "outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns" to be very very true.


All I know, is the UK has very low crime rates. Hell....more people are shot in the U.S. every year, than there are in the rest of the (civilized) world combined.

BTW: 5 years for a BB gun is total bullshit!

[gis]

there are some BB guns that are pretty realistic,i had a sig sauer P228 (i think the name was) that was full metal and weight of the real thing.if sum1 walked into the bank or sumthin with one i sure wouldnt want to challenge him to stop,lol :wink: incase it was real

[ssafal89]

I know ay i dunknow whats wrong with these ppl they should start thinking right

[RC45]

The United Kingdom (and many other "gun free" countries) has proven the saying "outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns" to be very very true.


All I know, is the UK has very low crime rates. Hell....more people are shot in the U.S. every year, than there are in the rest of the (civilized) world combined.

BTW: 5 years for a BB gun is total bullshit!

Actually the UK was 2nd behind the USA in crime in industrialized nations about 4 years ago - who knows if it any better today *shrug*

[SFDMALEX]

Hehe...I can realize someone trying to rob a store in Texas with a BB...you'll have some crazy hick owner stick a 12gauge in your mouth...then you realize that his children are shoving their M16 up your ass....

[graywolf624]

"about a year ago a post office here got held up for cash with a BB shotgun"
Thats sad. Who the hell would be scared of a bb gun. They may sting.. but walking in with a steak knife would have about as much a correlation.


"All I know, is the UK has very low crime rates. Hell....more people are shot in the U.S. every year, than there are in the rest of the (civilized) world combined. "

Actually.. The UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita then the US. In addition to as said above:


Actually the UK was 2nd behind the USA in crime in industrialized nations about 4 years ago - who knows if it any better today *shrug*


"According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
"
"But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape. "
"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York."
Canada and Australia also have an increasing violent crime problem as compared to US's decreasing one.

[RC45]

:shock:

[graywolf624]

Another side point. The lowest crime rate in europe has been switzerland. (They certainly aren't practicing gun control).

The other low one is japan.. Which is increasing actually.. This is actually attributed to Punishment, not gun control.

I don't want to make this a political post on gun control.. Well other then pointing out how moronic 5 years in jail for bb gun or paintball gun sounds. That being said, remember the UK and Australia are not the poster childs for gun control.

A quick google resulted in many articles with statistics. This one seems to gather alot of them from one study together.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
"Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
"
"Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
...
Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

"

[bmwfreak]

INteresting reading.... I used to have a realistic looking BB gun. A Walther PPK, i think. It fired metal ball bearings, which were dangerous as hell. I got rid of it when a stray shot from my brother hit our window and smashed it.

We dont have that much viiolent crome here in Malaysia... We get our fair share of armed bank robberies and all that, but we too have had problems with terrorist groups, but no where near as severe as those portrayed by the US State Dept or the British Foreign Office.

We probably have more problems with traffic accidents rather than anything else. BUt its interesting to see the US ranked so low.

[666fast]

Thats sad. Who the hell would be scared of a bb gun. They may sting.. but walking in with a steak knife would have about as much a correlation.


Actually, there are a few extremely powerfull BB guns out there. The odds of it killing you are pretty slim, but it doesn't mean it can't happen.
I'm sure when someone has a gun pointed at their face, the last thing they are thinking of is whether or not it's a BB gun!

[stradale]

The point is (already made by gis, BTW) that some of these things look very much like a real gun. Most people here, and I can imagine the same goes for the UK, can't tell the difference between a replica BB gun and a real one. People certainly aren't going to notice in a stressful situation like when they're being threatened with one. In that case one's not likely to take the risk and possibly find out it's real one after all. BB guns aren't banned because they can seriously wound you, but because they're means by which people can be threatened.

[toprpm]

rigestring the ba gun will not change anything ....ropers will ignore regitreing it and what an easy to hide things .....

in my country ..every house have more than 3 kind of guns and bestels ..as for me i have M16 short nose, ..and hunt guns ..i use them when i go to MOROCCO to hunt, geverment here not allowing to register or own ..but they can go after us to take them a way. . and we have a murder once in 2 years ..


i believe in one say


The most borhebted items is the most wanted.

[RC45]

The point is (already made by gis, BTW) that some of these things look very much like a real gun. Most people here, and I can imagine the same goes for the UK, can't tell the difference between a replica BB gun and a real one. People certainly aren't going to notice in a stressful situation like when they're being threatened with one. In that case one's not likely to take the risk and possibly find out it's real one after all. BB guns aren't banned because they can seriously wound you, but because they're means by which people can be threatened.

But if there was a chance that some of the patrons of the location about to be robbed may be carrying a weapon, the chances of the robbery even taking place in the first place, are a lot less likely.

[toprpm]

even if i carry white weapon i can control the store or bank ..from then i will take the gun from the gardes...this is a simple ropery idea


cation "please don't try to do this"

[stradale]

The point is (already made by gis, BTW) that some of these things look very much like a real gun. Most people here, and I can imagine the same goes for the UK, can't tell the difference between a replica BB gun and a real one. People certainly aren't going to notice in a stressful situation like when they're being threatened with one. In that case one's not likely to take the risk and possibly find out it's real one after all. BB guns aren't banned because they can seriously wound you, but because they're means by which people can be threatened.

But if there was a chance that some of the patrons of the location about to be robbed may be carrying a weapon, the chances of the robbery even taking place in the first place, are a lot less likely.

May be so, but then you're approaching this from the US gun law's point of view. Here it's prohibited to carry a firearm. Exceptions to that rule are policemen etc. The other way around, with everyone allowed to have firearms is not an option in our society.

We're not talking bank robberies only here. These things can also be used to rob or threaten old people in the streets, to name an example. Besides, are robberies less common in the US than in the Netherlands? I fwe were to arm patrons like you said, the robbers would indeed not rob the place with a replica or BB gun. They'd just bring a real one. So I doubt that will make much of a difference, except for the number of people killed during a robbery. It would surprise me if that number wouldn't go up.

[RC45]

Actually robbery is lowest in states that have citizen carry laws and highest in states with no gun carry laws.

I am just approaching it from the perspective of the facts.

If the only people with guns in a society are the "government" and the criminals - that doesn't exactly leave regular citizens with any chance if the shit hits the fan... that's the point.

Don't you think it is ironic that Switzerland - the nuetral - is armed to the teeth... ;)

Y'all may want to take a few pointers from the Swiss... ;) If I am not mistaken it is illegal to NOT have a gun in Switzerland... LOL :lol:

[stradale]

The Swiss situation is remarkable I think. But it has more to do with the people than with the guns. Having the same laws in the Netherlands would lead to more crimes and more violence I think. It's just speculation of course, because that would never happen here.

How's the number of deaths per robbery comparing states with citizen gun carry laws and stated without?

Here we have the situation you described. Only government and criminals have guns. That's the choice we made here. The government is upposed to safeguard the people from criminals. It's true that the government isn't always going to be there when something happens. Then the next question is: do you want people to defend themselves with firearms? IMO defending is fine, but bringing firearms in means they're not only going to be used for defence. It is inevitable these guns are also being used accidentally (by kids who find the gun or by someone who thinks he's being threatened or burgeled where he is not) or in 'crime passionel' etc. It also means criminals come by guns more easily and guns will be used more often in crime than now. All these disadvantages and the attitude change it would have on the people make it that here we chose to do it the way it is now. Given this fundamental choice the only way to keep people safe from criminals is ever improving the ones that have to uphold the law and try and make it as difficult as we can for criminals. It is no perfect solution, everyone admits, but the other option is far less ideal for our country and society.

[stracing]

i like our current gun rules. we call them air guns or air rifles. and these are banned as well. few months ago some idiot went ariound firing these things around and one pellet was lodged into someones head. luckily it didn't hit his eye. actually we're pretty tough on weapons. in one state, samurai swords and machetes are on the plans to have them banned as well.

but yea they look so real. i remember when i was 12 holding a replica beretta 92(?) my aunt bought me when i left HK

[RC45]

i like our current gun rules. we call them air guns or air rifles. and these are banned as well. few months ago some idiot went ariound firing these things around and one pellet was lodged into someones head. luckily it didn't hit his eye. actually we're pretty tough on weapons. in one state, samurai swords and machetes are on the plans to have them banned as well.

but yea they look so real. i remember when i was 12 holding a replica beretta 92(?) my aunt bought me when i left HK

When will people get it into their heads - a whacko that snaps could just as well go around clubbing people to death with a 9-iron... Whats next? Outlaw golf? Banning guns will not prevent those events.

So how about regulating and enforcing registration requirments then, hey?

Well - that is of no consequence in keeping guns/weapons from criminals - because they ARE crimnals and will circumvent the "legal system" to obtain their weapons anyway. :roll:

I wonder if all the anti-gun possession pro-gun-control folks know this little fact.

Not a single homocide that was commited with a registered firearm that was recovered at or near the scene of the crime has ever been tied back to the actual person who commited the crime - because in every case where the registered firearm used in the crime was recovered - the registered owner was not the person who commited the crime with the weapon

Law abiding people are just that - law abiding. Criminals are not.

Now onto gun control:

The commiting of violant crimes with firearms or other banned leathal weapons has never actually been prevented in any place where guns or lethal weapons have been banned and or outlawed.

Thats right folks - even in places where every kind of lethal weapon is controlled banned and confiscated - the criminal use of these weapons has never been prevented.

I have a challange for everyone here - if you are "anti-gun" lets see you people all go outside today, and place a big sign on your front lawn that reads:

"This house and family has no weapons on hand to defend of protect itself. We are really peace loving and have no defense mechanism"

Then we will report back here in 1 month to see what the outcome of advertising your lack of protection was.

[coombsie66]

^^ LOL, yeah, straight to the point as always. Our family shoot, my dad mostly pheasent shoots, and clay pigeon, and wood pigeon. He used to have a target rifle, but the laws were so strict on that weapon, and he didnt use it that much, so we got rid. We still have our shotguns, and i think that if the government were to outlaw these as well (as they have done handguns) that it would be a big mistake.
As as been stated (and proven by RC45) the crimes commited with guns, are not commited by the liscenced owners. Criminals will always find a way of getting weapons if they want to bad enough.
However i think there is a side to the argument that, if there are no guns in homes, then these guns are not going to be as easily available, through oppertunistic theft, or normal burglaries.
As for the BB gun thing, the problem (as with so many things) is not the weapon itself, its the kind of pikey bastards that inhabit our wonderfull world. If it wasnt for the fact that scum mugg people and hold up shops with these weapons then there wouldnt be any need for this, but there are. :roll:

[graywolf624]

"BB guns aren't banned because they can seriously wound you, but because they're means by which people can be threatened."

I could threaten someone with a baseball bat. We begin to enter the slippery slope....

[FerrariFerrari]

As far as I'm aware the laws, in the US, now require BB
guns and other replica guns to have the first 5mm of the
barrel painted bright red or orange. This makes it quite
easy to identify the difference between a real and a fake
gun but if I was a criminal, and I'm not :wink: , I would just
get smart and paint the barrel of my real gun bright red. :lol:

I don't beleive laws do anything to help crime, I think that
all they really do is make it clear what is right and what
is wrong and give a basis for which to try criminals. If
we didn't have any law we couldn't really try any criminals
for braking the law. :? It is the enforcement of the laws
that will cut down on crime.

Really if you want to cut down on crime I suggest nipping
it in the bud. Where is the bud? Well, that's a bit of a problem
because there are actually several buds but one of the biggest
ones is the lack of good parrenting. To many parrents
these days just don't seem to care about there kids and
consequently the kids end up roming the streets all day getting
influenced by the crime breeding atmosphere that lerks there.

[stracing]

but wouldn't a person with a bat be easier to control than someone carrying guns?

[graywolf624]

but wouldn't a person with a bat be easier to control than someone carrying guns?

By who? Also, compared to what. Im going to do much more damage if I have a bat and hit just as fast(then a bb gun). The only negative is is range, beyond that its the same thing.
I'd be willing to bet most of violent crime occurs 1 on 1. Heres the scenario. I have a baseball bat.. you don't.. In a mugging situation are you going to give me your money.. Most likely, especially if your old or a women(which are the primary targets for such actions.
People are killed often by being beat to death too. A well placed strike and it only would take one hit.

It's a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? When are things controlable enough that they don't need to be banned?
I'm still trying to avoid the policy issue of gun control. That being said, this thing with bbguns demonstrates exactly the slippery slope the nra pushes(which the opposition always says we would never go down). Basically their biggest arguement is where does it stop. A gun is a tool that can be used to kill people. It has other uses. A bat is a tool that can be used to kill people. It has other uses.. Your razor is a tool that can be used to kill people... it has other uses....... Where is the line drawn?

We actually see this in the plane thing in the US. Because of fears of hijacking you can't even carry a razor or a pocket knife. In the schools after columbine they took away kids butter knives.

[RC45]

That doesnt make sense, of course almost everything can be used to hurt people,but firearms are made for killing a 9 irion isnt...make your point dont be stupid. :wink:
and a wacko who snapps are more likley to hurt people if he have easy acsess to guns.....

Bullshit - as evidence by the very very low number of wackos that have actually mass killed people. In the grand scheme of things you are tallking about a percentage so far less than drunk drivers - why is it even of concern to anyone? (note the lack of ;) smiley)

Why? because it is news worthy.


Yes criminals will get the guns anyway, but not that easy if not every stupid fuck around can get them legaly and keeps them around so criminals can steal them.... :roll:

Again bulsshit - by far, the majority of weapons used in criminal acts were NOT stolenn from legitimate licenses owners - but simply sourced illigally. (again - note the lack of ;) smiley)



Your facts might be true I dont know where you got them from, so your guess is as good as mine..... :)

They are facts - and I will quote the appropriate sources (both international ans US based) when the time is right.


What about the guns that kill people by accident then, kids finding them and by mistake shoots the kid next door. :?:
or some stupid fuck who gets agravated in traffic and starts shooting... :roll:


Again? What's your point? This number of deaths is so few - it measures as 0.00000%'s of the number sof people killed each day in traffic accidents etc... I don't see a rush to ban driving.



Thats something everybody knows, but the more firearms there are the more it will be used and more deaths will follow as a result of it.
In a place where the criminal got the gun and not the victim in most cases the criminal dont use it......

You have got to be FUCKING kidding me?

So you are more likely to just HOPE that by being defenseless the guy won't shoot you? For fucksakes man - the person has already abandoned reason by breaking the law - you have obviously bought into the bullshit spread by media.

"Maybe if I just stand real still, the guy won't shoot us after he rapes my girlfriend"


If the person also got a gun and pulls this one there is a much higer risk of shoots being fired and people hurt or killed.
This is also a fact... :wink:


Jesus Christ - that is so ignorant on so many levels I am speachless.


But before you do, remember this its you,and not me that feel the need to have a gun to feel safe... :wink:

Whether I own guns or not is - not the point - it is the mass of lies and misinformation that is spread about "the truth"

And by the way - you will be anti-gun ownership (as was I at one time) right up until you become a victim.

At that moment (which likely will be too late to save a family member or friend) you will realize that the other guy has already decided to abandon all respect for the rule of law - so there is no use to rely on the rule of law to save you in that instant. The guy doesn't care that it was illegal to get the gun the way he did, that it was illegal to carry the gun, that it was illegal to pull the gun out, and that it was illegal to stick the gun in your dads side and squeeze off two rounds with no warning.

All this to steal his 4 year old Audi 500...

Good thing my dad was not killed by the first or second shot - and a good thing that by the time he was pulled out of the car he already had has his shoulder-holtered Glock drawn - and by the time the fuckers got 50 yard he had emptied 17 rounds into the passenger door and reloaded getting off 5 more rounds before he collapsed to his knees at the road side.

They found the car abandoned with a dead passanger and tracked down the driver... blead out in a ditch.

So - yes, all your tree hugging, peace-nick rantings are just that - ranting of the ignorant and ill informed.

All the winking smileys in the world won't detract from the fact that while you may choose to be gun-free - your opinions are NOT based on fact - but fantasy.

So - you may ask, what good came of the fact that my dad shot the guys after they were already making their get away? I mean he was safe - right? They left him after all.

Yes they left him to die right there - just as they did the other 6 people that they had already killed by them in car-jackings.

So, had he not shot the fuck out of them, they would have continued killing innocents - maybe their next victim could have been you or a family member on vacation in Johannesburg.

Unlike in your fantasy world, where if my dad had been unarmed, things would have been better - and they would have got away with murder

Oh yeah - and the guns they were carrying? Off the shelf military issue pistols guns from some European arms manufacturer - had never been licensed or registered any where - they were part of a huge shipment of illegal weapons smuggled out of Europe - that's right illegally obtained weapons - as are most weapons used in crimes.

;)

[graywolf624]

"make sense, of course almost everything can be used to hurt people,but firearms are made for killing a 9 irion isnt...make your point dont be stupid.
and a wacko who snapps are more likley to hurt people if he have easy acsess to guns..... "

Guns don't have to be used to kill.. They have legitamate uses just like anything else. Realize that the proportion of guns used to commit a crime is so small as to be almost inconsequential. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
*those are my only statements on gun control itself. But anyone with a sane mind would think 5 years in jail for a bbgun is a little screwy. :roll:

[graywolf624]

hunting and sports shooting....

Shooting sports don't have to be killing people. You don't kill people in the olympics.


And for the fun part it can be keept in organized shooting ranges, no need for the avarge joe to have a m16 assault rifle under his bed IMO.

First off, if you train people well they'll know your supposed to lock up your guns.
Second off, why not? So someone owns an m16. Some people even collect guns like people collect stamps. That gun may never even be fired. So what has it hurt?
The number one reason to have guns.. and many of you will discount this.. is a hitler/stalin rehash over there in Europe. The people within the country sure won't have methods to defend themselves. Furthermore, alot of the weapons used in wwII were shipped over from private owners in America because there wasn't enough to go around. That isn't to say that their shouldnt be limits(no rpgs for example), but the gun honestly gets a bad rap. Its a tool, like anything else. It can be used for good or bad. The solution to the problems isn't ban the tool, its punnish the offenders. Make jail cease to be like club med and revive things like the death penalty/other strict sentences. I'd almost guarentee that violent crimes are primarily commited by repeat offenders. Most people don't just snap and become killers or violent. They are that way their entire lives. (with a few exceptions).

[RC45]

Well I for one respect the human life, I also think that to many people dies in traffic each year, but you cant say because alot of people die in traffic it ok that of people get shoot to, I dont think you are that stupid and narrow minded...

Not at all - I am just waiting to hear how you plan to stop the 100,000's of annual road deaths around the world - as while these deaths continue to rise unabaited - the anti-gun camp focus's on privatley owned guns - as if they kill the most people - which they don't - and simply ignore the "traffic" situation..


Dont bring Jesus Christ into this dude, you are so far away from his word as you can get....
and for ignorant you score pretty high your self dude and not only in this case.....

Jesus scares you too?

You suffer from the eternal European problem - you seem to think that the rest of the entire world is void of education...


Sorry to hear about your father if it is true and not only a attempt to get symphaty for your view.....

I like the way that as soon as the ugly reality of life shows up - you begin to believe it is a false exageration. :roll: - perhaps pictures of the entry and exit wounds and the recoved car would put your mind at ease.


What you dont seem to understand is that the world dont turn around you, and if people experience things different to how you see them its a fantasy.
Thats ignorant dude.
I live everyday with a strickt gun law you live with a mickey mouse gun law, you feel that you need a gun I dont need one, who are better of in your mind...?

Again - your choice to be gun free is not under discussion - your choice to PROMOTE a gun free society based on false information is.

BTW, open a book sometime - South Africa (which is the focus now it seems) has extremely strict gun control laws - but never the less allows citizens to defend themsekves.

The Africa that the European colonialists left behind is a dangerous and hostile place - where the aboriginal view point is "an eye for an eye" - Africa can be a very brutal place.


please pump this story some more, you got my symphaty earlier in this thread.....

Your sarcasm is lost on the many European do-gooder youth/tourists types that have visited South Africa - trying to appeal to the criminal elements "sympathies" - they are dead now. :roll:


Yes they are stolen military guns, but what happens in south africa and what is the daily thing in texas are different, why do a person need a assult rifle to protect himself self?

Please pull your frozen head out of your ass - Assault rifles are first off not regulated by Personal Carry Weapon Laws - and second not at issue. This entire discussion has been centered around HAND GUNS.


I dont live in a poor country and neither do you, And you are obviously scared of everybody.

So now we get down to brass tacks - Fuck the poor because they deserver to die - we, the rich are harken to a higher plateau of conciousness and do not need to subscribe to such barbarianisms as "self protection".

Why not come right out and say what you really mean - Black Africa is savage and out of site is out of mind - different rules should apply to white Europe.

Far from being "scared of everybody" - I am simply a realist, and know that there are people in the world with hostile intents.


I am sorry for you, and the people that thinks that owning a gun equals saftey, thats just a load of CRAP....
It is about the right to choose whether or not you want to bare arms in self defense.

And just because you sit in your "isolated ivory tower or european splendor and state sponsored utopia" does not mean that everywhere on earth is as your neighbourhood.

On the one extreme:

Do houses in your neighbourhood require 6 foor walls with razor wire on top to prevent home invasions by armed gangs?

I didn't think so.

So why should these families not be permitted to at least have the choice to protect themselves?

and the other extreme:
In peace loving, nuetral Switzerland, should those folks not be permitted, by choice have acess to a weapon to protect themselves if they so choose.

It is about not having your life dictated to you...

But then again, most Europeans pay more of their income to the government to maintain this false sense of Utopia than they get to keep anyway - so I guess big intrusive government is a way of life you enjoy.

More power to you.


31 March 2004

Johannesburg - A woman and a teenage girl were raped and a man severely beaten and shot in a hijacking on the N1 highway near the Ennerdale bridge on Wednesday morning, police said.

The three had left their Randburg home about 05:00 driving to their new home in Cape Town in a Colt bakkie with a trailer, and had just passed the Ennerdale bridge when three or four people in a Camry forced them to stop and overpowered them.

Inspector Trudie Wilken said the 46-year-old woman and the 14-year-old girl were forced into the Camry and taken to Ennerdale where they were raped.

The father was severely beaten and shot and pushed out of the bakkie onto the Golden Highway.

Police were alerted to the crime and found the woman and the girl walking along the highway and a little later found the man.

They were rushed to Milpark Hospital and an anti-hijacking task force is searching for the attackers, Wilken said.

============================================

Durban - Two armed men, both of them policemen, were arrested in Amanzimtoti south of Durban on Wednesday morning when they attempted to rob a security van transporting money, KwaZulu-Natal police said.

Inspector Vincent Mdunge said the men approached the Fidelity Guards security van outside the First National Bank in the Amanzimtoti city centre just after 09:00.

Policemen and Metro police who were nearby, saw the armed men approaching the vehicle and confronted them. A shoot-out ensued with two of the men being arrested at the scene. The third man managed to run away.

No-one was injured in the shooting.

[graywolf624]

but with people carrying them with them they cant be locked up all the time

Well, in terms of assault weapons they shouldn't and don't carry them. In terms of rifles they have to have a permit and usually outside the city. Only in germany do you see people walking around with m16s.. And those are the airport guards.. lol
You'd be hard pressed to find a crime commited with an assault rifle in the US, they aren't that common. Not to mention they have been banned for years(that ban was just lifted I think?)

"I dont see the point in having fully funcktional m16`s in a collection if they aint "
If the gun isn't fully functional, then you haven't collected all of it. Kinda like getting half of a top gear video, or a stamp thats already been used. It isn't the same.

Civilized worlds can become uncivilized(hitler for example). Also hunting is fairly civilized and needed (in moderation) to keep population in check.

Remember, I'm in favor of individual rights with the belief that it will lead to the sociatal good. Rather then to work for the societal good at the expense of individual rights. Thats the primary difference between socialism and conservatism. The belief of which method will work best. In reality, most evidence backs the individual rights on this issue when applied to a society with a decent justice system.

*That being said I definitly understand where your comming from. So don't take me as malicious.

[graywolf624]

Interesting story. There is a township in GA that made gun ownership mandatory. This township had a dramatic drop in crime rate. Their surrounding neighbors who didnt have such a policy had their crime rates double. If that isn't evidence that criminals avoid homes with guns I don't know what is. Most criminals want the easiest money they can get. Thats why they are criminals.. and thats why most targets are women and the elderly.

*I also wouldnt be for mandatory gun ownership. Everything is a choice.

[RC45]

Yes guns should be locked up, but with people carrying them with them they cant be locked up all the time and I just dont see why people need to have a gun when they live in a sivilized country......

sorry I just dont see it guys.

Then don't :roll:

[RC45]

I dont say that the world is like my neighbourhood, I just tell you what its like in my neighbourhood and ask you if you think its better to have a neighbourhood where everybody carries guns, than a place where almost nobody does?
its a simpel question and you dont want to answer it, instead you try to make me out as a European wannabe better than others guy, wich im not and not trying to be either.

try to pull your own frozen head out of your ass and open your own eyes a little, and stop making some half ass assumptions on how I am...

It is better to live in a society where everyone has the right to choose whether or not they want to carry a concealed weapon - rather than be prohited by law to self defense.

Simple.

[graywolf624]

For the reality created of many years of mickey mouse gun laws this might be true, and it cant be changed over the night.

Brembo, as bad as they say things are here. They aren't that bad. I personally don't know anyone that was involved in a violent crime that involved a gun. I do know one person who was shot accidentally. I live in an area where everyone owns guns practically. Personally I probably have shot over 100000 rounds, and been in the vicinity of guns that shot over a million bullets (my father was a shooting instructor). Most of the US's crime though occurs in the cities, not the suburbs or elsewhere. Even 10000 a year is a small number when you figure we have 250+ million people.

[RC45]

And why should that be a right to carry arms?


Because that is the only mechanism available to the general populace that guarantees a tyranical leader cannot over power his own people.

But I guess you have already forgotten how many times that happened in "gun free" Eurpoe over the last 100 years. :roll:

oh except Switzerland - whose armed militia has served 2 purposes for over about the last 1000 years or so - National Defense (ask the Germans about that one) and maintaining the balance of power within the federation - allowing the government to govern and the people to be free. (relatively speaking)

[stradale]

oh except Switzerland - whose armed militia has served 2 purposes for over about the last 1000 years or so - National Defense (ask the Germans about that one) and maintaining the balance of power within the federation - allowing the government to govern and the people to be free. (relatively speaking)

Do you really think Hitler didn't attack Switzerland because the Swiss had guns? :shock:

Anyway, what everyone seems to be missing is that there is no universal approach for gun control. I don't know what I would do if I lived in the US or SA. Maybe I would buy a gun. But I do know that having a gun doesn't necessarily makes you more safe. I think the more people have arms, the more vicious crime gets. In the US and SA guns are too much embedded in society to get them out I think. For Europe it's an entirely different situation.

I wouldn't want to see guns being allowed here, simply because I don't trust people with guns. That's also being realistic. Like someone else in this thread said, "guns don't kill people. People kill people." Then why arm them? It is a fact guns aren't just used for noble reasons like self-protection. It is hard enough already to train policemen when firing their gun is appropriate action or excessive force, untrained people will make a right mess. Besides, RC45's point that the murders committed with registered firearms shows that guns bought for self-protection are being used for different purposes. I'm not saying the crime otherwise wouldn't have been committed with an unregistered arm, but examples of burglars that break in and find a registered gun, take it with them, get into trouble at the next house and resort to using the stolen gun that results in someone's death are easily imaginable. It is just an example, so don't make it look like I said that is what's going to happen, but you can't ignore those sort of clear disadvantages.

I'm really sorry to hear what happened to your father, RC. Once again, if I lived in SA I might buy a gun myself. Be it to make me feel more safe, where in fact, I am not. Your father's case shows that. He may have avenged his own hurt, but did carrying a gun change the outcome for himself in any way? He didn't prevent his injuries. They had already shot him and left him there. With or without the gun the outcome would have been the same for him. If he hadn't been lucky, he would have died. Again with or without the gun. Having a gun is a false sense of security IMO. Criminals are ruthless and can catch you out whether you own a gun or not.

Everyone is entitled to make his own decision whether to buy a gun or not (in a country where one can make that decision), but being for or against owning a gun should never make one think there are no disadvantages to it. There is no such thing as an option with only positive sides in this matter. That's being realistic. For me, I'm glad to live in a country where guns are not allowed. In this country it's the best choice, given all circumstances. It fits our society best. And I'm happy with that. As I said earlier, I just don't trust people enough with guns. It would do us Dutchies more harm than good.

[toprpm]

I dont say that the world is like my neighbourhood, I just tell you what its like in my neighbourhood and ask you if you think its better to have a neighbourhood where everybody carries guns, than a place where almost nobody does?
its a simpel question and you dont want to answer it, instead you try to make me out as a European wannabe better than others guy, wich im not and not trying to be either.

try to pull your own frozen head out of your ass and open your own eyes a little, and stop making some half ass assumptions on how I am...

It is better to live in a society where everyone has the right to choose whether or not they want to carry a concealed weapon - rather than be prohited by law to self defense.

Simple.


thats totally right ..

in addetion the shops have to take information of the buyer so in case of future problem the gun will be in recored to the real owner ...this would help in crime investegation

[graywolf624]

"Or a democratic government can also guarantee this, your coment up there just shows that you are afraid of everything. "

Brembo, while I concur that the chances are slim, democracy does not guarentee against another dictator. Many countries with dictators had some sorta democracy on paper.


untrained people will make a right mess.

Thats why groups like the nra say that gun training should be part of public education. I agree with them on that. Even someone who doesn't own one should be trained in case they come across one.

"Then why arm them? It is a fact guns aren't just used for noble reasons like self-protection. "

As I stated above 99.9999 percent of guns are never used to kill people. Yes many people carry guns for self protection. So it is a fact that almost all guns are not used for illegal purposes. It is also a fact that it doesnt reduce crime(violent or otherwise). Also in reality most of the guns used for crime aren't even stolen registered guns.. Which should tell you since registration is mandatory here, that perhaps there is another issue at work. That is that some guns were never registered in the first place, are made by underground groups, or are stolen from govt/police.

[RC45]

oh except Switzerland - whose armed militia has served 2 purposes for over about the last 1000 years or so - National Defense (ask the Germans about that one) and maintaining the balance of power within the federation - allowing the government to govern and the people to be free. (relatively speaking)

Do you really think Hitler didn't attack Switzerland because the Swiss had guns? :shock:



Yes.

I am guessing there is a lot of WWII history you have NOT read up on.

Germany did attcak Switzerland in a number fo small ground incursions and was soundly beaten each time - the monuments to these Swiss battle successes are still standing in Switzerland today.

Why do YOU think Germany did not invade Switzerland?

[RC45]

But I guess you have already forgotten how many times that happened in "gun free" Eurpoe over the last 100 years. :roll: .


this doesnt even deserve a reply....... :roll:

Why ? Because the only country NOT occupied by Hitler during WWII was self-armed?

Unless you have a better explanation as to why Hitler never invaded Switzerland? (and don't say because he respected their neutrality)

[TT]

It's true that Switzerland was pretty safe thanks to the banks ;) but you should check out some places deep into the Alps.. won't be easy, not at all, even for the strongest of the armies to pass through... in the Alps we have some of the better defense emplacement an army could dream ;)
Bombing would be useless there ;)

We could be small, but we are not sissies ;)
Oh and yes, here in Switzerland every adult male has his own rifle at home after the military service at 18 yo ;)

[BADMIHAI]

Oh and yes, here in Switzerland every adult male has his own rifle at home after the military service at 18 yo



That's cool! I want one of those!

[TT]

Well that also mean that every year you have to go to the army again for a couple of weeks :roll:

http://www.tir-sportif.ch/web/les_armes/Fas_90a.gif
http://www.tir-sportif.ch/web/les_armes/Fas_90a.gif

[BADMIHAI]

So your time to go this year is coming soon?

[TT]

Strangely enough I didn't get my call yet.. but it will probably come soon I suppose...

[bmwfreak]

This a very messy argument going back and forth. I agree with stradale, there is no universal approach to gun control, gun policy, law and so on and so forth.

The original topic was about BB Guns and the laws that are going to be introduced to cut down on their usage, right? Or the supposed illegality of their existence in public hands?

First off, I'm sorry to hear about your father RC. And yes, i can agree with your point that if he hadnt dropped them, they would have killed more people and stolen more cars. I suppose the issue is gun control (between you and Brembo, at least), and I can see where both sides of the argument come from.

It reminds me (if you lot were to bear with me) of a debate between the pigs in Animal Farm (a political satire written by George Orwell, criticising Communism). In the book, the pigs had overthrown their human oppressors (the farmers), and were trying to decide on how best to protect themselves. There were two leaders divided on the issue, Snowball and Napoleon. Napoloen was in favour of arming all the animals with weapons, training them in their usage, so that they could defeat any potential force that would try and invade them.

Snowball preferred sending out couriers and messengers to other farms, telling other animals of their exploits, so that they could overthrow their own oppressors, and take control of what was rightfully theirs. The result? They wouldnt need weapons to feel safe, because there was nothing to defend themselves against.

The point? both situations are correct, both situations have their merits. LIke any two sides to a story, any two sides in an argument, everything has its bad and good points. It wouldnt possibly be a good thing to have EVERYONE carrying guns. And it wouldnt also be a good thing to have everyone live their lives with the risk of getting shot up or something without a means to defend themselves.

Like brembo, I too, live in a peaceful neighbourhood where next to no one has a gun. But my hometown is different, unlike the capital KL. What gun control laws that could work in KL, would be counter-productive in my hometown. Even in the same country (mine), there is is no single approach that could work. Everything must be taken into context. It's unfortunate that most politicians dont have more common sense than they have political ambition.

[SFDMALEX]

Guys the fact is that it doesnt matter how much or how little a coutry or a person have in relation to guns. Laws and so on.

It all depends on culture, or should I say the people.

These facts dont mean shit because all of them dont make sense. The Swiss have a gun for each member of the family, and so or nearly close as much have the Americans....Swiss have low crime rates,,,Americans dont...but then again you can put in numbers such as population...

It all depends on the people. The Swiss are happy, they have nothing to shoot about.
The Americans are not so happy,,,some boy from the Ghetto needs money so he grabs a gun and goes to shoot people.......and so on...

In the end it has nothing to do with gun laws and such.

Dont beleive these staticstics....never do...think about what made those statistics...

Its all down to people, gun laws, amount of guns doesnt have anything to do with it.

[stradale]

oh except Switzerland - whose armed militia has served 2 purposes for over about the last 1000 years or so - National Defense (ask the Germans about that one) and maintaining the balance of power within the federation - allowing the government to govern and the people to be free. (relatively speaking)

Do you really think Hitler didn't attack Switzerland because the Swiss had guns? :shock:



Yes.

I am guessing there is a lot of WWII history you have NOT read up on.

Germany did attcak Switzerland in a number fo small ground incursions and was soundly beaten each time - the monuments to these Swiss battle successes are still standing in Switzerland today.

Why do YOU think Germany did not invade Switzerland?

TT's answer already implied that the Germans were not afraid of armed civilians. Besides, Swiss troops would have retreated to the mountains and resorted to a sort of guerrilla warfare. So the terrain was one of the factors. Like TT already said, so were the gold transactions of the Swiss banks. Then there's the railroads between Germany and Italy, which would be at risk in case of a German attack. The Germans feared they might be blown up by the Swiss.