British terrorist attackers obvious lack of firearms.... Take note America!

Good afternoon ATS.

I've spent many years on this here site and others arguing with Americans about gun control, I've been through all the arguments over and over again and it always ends with the comment "If you take away all the guns, only the bad guys will have them"... or "If someone wants to carry out a mass killing they will get a gun by whatever means, banning/grabbing guns will not stop this, it just means we won't be able to protect ourselves"... And similar arguments....

My main point in all these discussions is a simple one, that a country with less guns, is a safer country.

Now as we all know this comes down to mentality/culture as well, other countries have a high percentage of weapons in citizens hands, Canada, switzerland etc, but these problems don't seem to occur with anywhere near the frequency they do in the states...

My main point is something I noticed this week, of the 3 terror attacks in the UK in the last month or so NO GUNS were used, that's right, NO GUNS.... This appears to prove my point that a society with less guns is a safer society, and completely destroys the argument that if people want to kill they will find guns and kill people.... These chaps couldn't get hold of one, and they seemed to be planning for quite some time... That's how hard it is to get hold of a gun in the UK, very hard.

In Australia for instance, after the Port Arthur massacre, there was an amnesty...... A large percentage of guns were handed in, the people understood that a society is safer if people don't have hand held killing tools in their homes. The cost of obtaining the same gun used in the Port Arthur Massacre went from 250 Dollars to 40,000 dollars.... See what happened?

I would propose that my argument for all these years has been seen in action. Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

That is all.

PA

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

"Against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Take away the gov'ts guns first..
then we'll talk.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I agree. We need to have laws banning knives in the UK and the USA.












** just kidding ** It's so easy to troll!

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

Ok, I'll bite. There was the big one. You know, 9/11. No guns whatsoever. They used Assault Airliners.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I couldn't tell you how many have not used guns but I can say the largest terrorist attack on American soil did not uses guns.
Just box cutters and airplanes.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

We need to ban commercial jets!

Mmmmmkaaaayyyy .... so three terrorist attacks an people dead is safer .

Only ones it safer for is the terrorists .

Hmm it seems like its a lot safer here then in London. Maybe their attacks are up because the terrorist know they dont have guns to shoot back.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

"Against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Take away the gov'ts guns first..
then we'll talk.

The government doesn't need guns I agree. All our military spending did nothing to stop 9/11. Why spend any money at all????

originally posted by: Aldakoopa

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

Ok, I'll bite. There was the big one. You know, 9/11. No guns whatsoever. They used Assault Airliners.

And the OKC bombing.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Aldakoopa

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

Ok, I'll bite. There was the big one. You know, 9/11. No guns whatsoever. They used Assault Airliners.

And the OKC bombing.

We need to ban trucks too!

How about we just bann terrorists? Sounds like a simple solution right?

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

My main point in all these discussions is a simple one, that a country with less guns, is a safer country.

My main point is something I noticed this week, of the 3 terror attacks in the UK in the last month or so NO GUNS were used, that's right, NO GUNS.... This appears to prove my point that a society with less guns is a safer society, and completely destroys the argument that if people want to kill they will find guns and kill people.... These chaps couldn't get hold of one, and they seemed to be planning for quite some time... That's how hard it is to get hold of a gun in the UK, very hard.

And yet it didn't prevent them from killing did it?
SMH

It felt rather surreal reading your thread considering recent events.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Aldakoopa

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

Ok, I'll bite. There was the big one. You know, 9/11. No guns whatsoever. They used Assault Airliners.

And the OKC bombing.

And the Boston Marathon bombing.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Governments don't tend to own guns, that would be the army and the police force....

You do realise that your government was elected by the people to serve the people? Where you get this idea that one day your government will turn on the people and massacre you all is beyond me, your grasp of politics seems lacking somewhat.

Also, They have drones, good luck with that....

PA

a reply to: dfnj2015

Lol, I admire your mirth my friend...

PA

originally posted by: notsure1
How about we just bann terrorists? Sounds like a simple solution right?

Trump is trying, but that's racist apparently.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

Ok, I'll give you that, 1!

Your medal is in the post...

PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Governments don't tend to own guns, that would be the army and the police force....

Good thing to know the Army and police forces are not part of the government.

a reply to: dfnj2015

That's a whole other argument altogether!

PA