The British have something to say to us Americans!

page: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 

I think there'd probably be quite a lot of talk about what the hell was going on if the police and military were working together, let's be honest.

Also, the monarchy has billions locked up around the place, I'm sure they're not going to starve if they dissolve a particularly terrible government.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Thistled
 


Sure, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is responsible for the entire global meltdown.

Thinking heads eh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking heads eh! Obviously you haven't got yours on? Brown Isn't totally responsible for the economic meltdown but he is here in the UK and since the worlds leaders attend all manner of meetings who is to say there Isn't something conspiratorial going on behind the scenes. I'm alarmed that you have such trust in a government who spends most of it's time lieing to us.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?



I have. And I can put all my rounds within one inch of what I am aiming at. On a good day, I can put several through the same hole in the target.

What makes you think gun owners dont like to shoot? Have you ever been to a firing range? On a weekend, you have to wait in line for the opportunity if you dont get there early enough.

You would be surprised how good some average citizens are who have NOT had "years of extensive formal training." I have had cops come up at the indoor range and stare with their mouths open when I bring my target back in. Quite a few gun owners actually do target shoot.

What makes you think a uniform makes someone a better shot?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
"Where were these voices six years ago, when there was an outright ban on handguns?"

Probably contemplating the Dunblane massacre.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Dunblane massacre was a multiple murder-suicide which occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. Sixteen children and one adult were killed. In addition, the attacker, Thomas Watt Hamilton, committed suicide. It remains the deadliest single targeted mass homicide on children in the history of the United Kingdom.


This is why the ban was introduced.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Xeros]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jBrereton
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 

I think there'd probably be quite a lot of talk about what the hell was going on if the police and military were working together, let's be honest.

Also, the monarchy has billions locked up around the place, I'm sure they're not going to starve if they dissolve a particularly terrible government.


Agreed, but thats because it hasn't happened yet. I'm talking about if the situation arose where the people began to rebel against the government would this be a likely scenario. And I think it would.
And as for the manarchy, I wonder just how the Brown government, or any for that matter, would react to being told to dispand.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
It would never get to that because of 'a general election', that's how you go about it.

The days of coup d'etat in the UK are long gone. We speak, we VOTE now.

It's a bit more grown up.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I am British.

I say ban guns in our country.
we get the odd gun story, person shot here and there, nothing major really.

i couldnt sleep at night if everyone had a gun.

2 weeks ago, a man was shot dead about 3 miles from my house, in some drug war. the people involved were caught within a day, and are now in jail.

i like things the way they are.

certainly dont see the need to run out and buy a gun.
Our police dont carry guns, but every police department has a "gun squad" on the ready, if needed, and in fairness, i can remember 4 or 5 times where i have heard they have been used (in my area, Edinburgh)

If everyone had guns, as i say, it would be madness here

Just the opinion of a 35 year old Scottish man


[edit on 26/1/2009 by shauny]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thistled
It would never get to that because of 'a general election', that's how you go about it.

The days of coup d'etat in the UK are long gone. We speak, we VOTE now.

It's a bit more grown up.


Yes, I understand what you're saying but in a time of crisis, man made or not, decorum and niceness will go out of the _ And remember, it Isn't just here in the UK. It seems that people all over the world are getting fed up with being constantly pushed about and lied to by their governments. What I'm saying is that if the sh*t hit the fan everywhere, all at once and it became a question of survival, wouldn't you rather be armed or have a means of protecting your family?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice? Well, guess what? You're inability to actually hit a target is about as close as the guy who, wishing to be a criminal, is.


So being able to so this:
i475.photobucket.com...

At 700 yards with a 223
winds e/se @5-10mph
moderate sun

Gives me more of a right to have a gun than the next? Not everyone had a dad who was a navy seal or friends who are in the armed forces to help them learn to be a marksmen. (markswoman
)
If a person takes a gun safety course and learns how to use a gun it is and should be there right to have one.


end of looooong druggggggg outttttt storrrrrry



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Seriously, we have never had the right to own a gun over here so there was no point when they were "taken away".



umm, yes we did!

We always had the right to own shotguns. The police can only refuse your application for a license if there is a good reason.

As for section 1 firearms (pistols and rifles), you never had the right to own these, but if you had a good reason, and had no worrisome convictions, then you could easily obtain a license for these.

The fact that we did not have the right to obtain firearms under any circumstances, is neither here nor there. What is important, is that we were able to own firearms, and now we are not (pistols and semi/auto rifles anyway).

[edit on 26-1-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
....aaaaannnd suppose you just get a little toooo drunk or angry with somebody at 2 in the morning?

Best to remove it from the equation really.

Much safer.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bookofthelaw
I never understood this as they were kept in the club which was itself low key and well fortified and members needed a police issued licence.


Not true. Firearms could be kept at home, and this was usually the case as long as the license holder had adequate security.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thistled
....aaaaannnd suppose you just get a little toooo drunk or angry with somebody at 2 in the morning?

Best to remove it from the equation really.

Much safer.


But you could just as easily go to your cutlery draw and take out a bread knife and kill someone! If you're of that mindset, through drink or drugs, then you're going to inflict harm on someone no matter what you end up using. Remember it's not the gun that kills it's the person who aims and fires it. . .



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
More chance of death if the person who is drunk / drugged holds a gun.

I'll take the risk with a knife / spoon / whatever, odds will be on my side then. Guns are just too risky in the equation. Eliminate them and there's an increase in the probability of survival. Simple math.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thistled
....aaaaannnd suppose you just get a little toooo drunk or angry with somebody at 2 in the morning?

Best to remove it from the equation really.

Much safer.


So the argument here is, "I dont know if I can control myself, therefore NO ONE is able to control them self."

Maybe you should have a gun, and give up the booze?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodForbid

Gun crime rose in the UK after the gun ban. Well yes it did. And that's because owning, or being in possession of a gun counts as gun crime, where as it wouldn't have before they were banned. So everyone caught with a gun in their house which they didn't give away, is now a gun criminal.


You were joking when you wrote this weren't you?

You know that every single firearm that was legally owned had to be registered with the police?

If anyone had not handed in their firearms by the deadline, they would have been raided the very next day! I doubt any UK firearms license holder would have been dumb enough to try this!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thistled
More chance of death if the person who is drunk / drugged holds a gun.

I'll take the risk with a knife / spoon / whatever, odds will be on my side then. Guns are just too risky in the equation. Eliminate them and there's an increase in the probability of survival. Simple math.


I agree with you up to a point, death by spoon! That's got to hurt. . . I just wonder how your point of view would change if you found yourself having to defend your family from some loon intent on hurting them. With the greatest of respect I don't think you would then be worried about the dangers of firearms just thankful you had one in your hand.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I'm sure there are a few stats in the US to support incidents of firearms / deaths and alcohol.

My point is, those stats will be lower in the UK, because we don't have the firearms, (sure there are some pockets in run down areas, but very rare) they are not part of the equation.

Remove the firearms, you improve probability of survival.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Sure, the "conflict" between the parties concerned would be more equal - if no firearms were involved. You would have an increase in your probability of survival.

There's a bigger chance of your family being slaughtered if he has a gun, as opposed to a spoon.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I know this is silly, but I'm wondering why most of the people in that video, were middle class looking, posh sounding older people? Strange indeed. Is that what Fox hunters look like?

ps. A lot of those people only care about fox hunting, which I'm glad is banned. But I see the point with the rest of the subject.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by _Phoenix_]





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join