Dunblane School Massacre....ended handgun rights in UK

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Owning guns should not be above a parent's right to watch their kid grow up.

Owning guns should not deprive kids from a safe place to learn.

Gun rights are eroding because we have had far too many massacres where the innocent blood of kids has been shed. I hope this nation has had enough of the mass killings, accidental kid shootings and street shootings that happen daily


Oh how convenient for people to extol this tragedy. If we went by statistics alone "Drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub" would outdo by a wide margin annual mass murder in the US. Those bath tubs are deadly instruments you know. How about the common flu?

You know what I think? The same thing I always have. People run amok and make decisions based on emotion instead of reason. Me personally I'm afraid of what will happen to us if we lose our right to bear arms. Everything is cause and effect and IMHO people that want those guns to go away would want them back after they had to live in the police state we'd have without them.




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375


for the sake of example
edit on 17-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


In our country yes it is illegal to possess certain material whose motives are to promote and assist people in the aid of making bombs, identifying targets for terrorist acts etc.

The lady in question was the sister of a terrorist who was jailed for a plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange. She was later found to be in possession of a magazine which had the material in it I stated above....she pleaded guilty.

As to your other question.....why when do you all plan to take up your arms and rise against a government who tries to oppress you? And when and if you do, what do you see as the outcome?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 

why do ppl keep saying this ?

Fully automatic weapons are banned
NO, they aren't.
they are available for purchase with a special permit.
that ^^^ is not the same as being banned.


@ Asheliate

Then perhaps we should each be allowed to own a nuclear weapon in our household?
permission isn't the issue being discussed.
do you have a kitchen in your household ?
if so, then you're already are capable of creating a nuclear weapon.

the lack of know how or lack of ingredients is the ONLY thing stopping you from doing such.


Do you realize that if you are wrong
we're not.

then you are in essence justifying your ownership of guns at the expense of more innocent lives?
self defense needs NO justification.

do you realize that if only ONE of the six adults murdered had been "allowed" to defend themselves, maybe 20 children would still be alive, today ?
gun-free zones are a joke and an invitation to destruction.

clueless is as clueless does, hence, we have 20 dead children.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logos23

Originally posted by Ghost375
So how many other rights have you lost since this happened?

Because I keep hearing about how you guys have some outrageous laws over there...

So what are the real ramifications of the handgun ban besides lower shootings?


No ramifications....we didn't have a gun culture before or after the ban.....hardly anyone before the ban had a handgun anyway
an assortment of violent crime has been steadily rising since 1998 but you don't view that as a "ramification"? interesting viewpoint.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Just throwing this out here.

UK Area: Total: 244,820 SQ KM. Water: 3,230 SQ KM Land: 241,590 SQ KM. Land area is 59698189 acres.
report this answer
Updated on Friday, February 03 2012 at 02:06AM GMT

Read more www.kgbanswers.co.uk...
The total land and water area of the United States is approximately 2,428,224,640 acres. wiki.answers.com...

That's a difference of 2,368,526,451 acres favoring the US in size.

Now lets look at population.

UK Population: 62,641,000 (2011)
US Population: 311,591,917 (2011)
That's a difference of 248,950,917 People favoring the US.

So while a gun ban may have worked for the UK it might not work for the US. then again it may, I hope it doesn't come down to that but I just figured I'd throw that info out there. Not saying it's truth or fact either that was just a basic Google search.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is there's a lot more space and a lot more people in the US. It creates more variables and with a larger population there's a larger chance for "bad" things to happen.


edit on 12/17/2012 by Seeker13068 because: I didn't make a point in my post.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
So basically now all handguns in uk are not traceable and illegally owned by off the radar criminals and ghosts, both with high moral values and conscience, fully responsible and aware of whats wrong or right...

and I.R.A which like ghosts doesnt exist, therefore...

Ok. I see your point. Makes sense.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
The results of banning hand guns in the UK should be looked at by American citizens and acted upon accordingly. But I am certain that American Citizens won't do this because their culture deems them far too selfish to do so.


what were the results? has there been a notable drop in murders or?

i'm on the fence at the moment and I'm a brit, would love to know what effect the ban had.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Logos23

Originally posted by Ghost375
So how many other rights have you lost since this happened?

Because I keep hearing about how you guys have some outrageous laws over there...

So what are the real ramifications of the handgun ban besides lower shootings?


No ramifications....we didn't have a gun culture before or after the ban.....hardly anyone before the ban had a handgun anyway
an assortment of violent crime has been steadily rising since 1998 but you don't view that as a "ramification"? interesting viewpoint.


The massive rise in violent crime rates portrayed for the UK is mainly media based hype and political propaganda ....It's not a secret.... the truth is out there.
I don't have time to post links because I'm off to beddy bye's right now...but if you want to get a hint of what I am talking about in the meantime, look at the Wikipedia entry for " violent crime" and see what it say's about violent crime for the UK and the graph attached.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by skitzspiricy
 


I don't understand why I am being punished for this? What did I do wrong? Why are you stripping me of my rights? Where is my due process?

And its not even for a real solution? This "Gun Ban" follows the same lines as the "war on drugs" and drugs are litterly all over the street.

So you wan't to take away my constitutional right, all for nothing, because the Guns arent going anywhere. And If you think the government is going to round up and imprison all the people who REFUSE to disarm themselves, THINK AGAIN. Prisons are overcrowded due to drug arrests, they are letting these people go early all the time due to space problems.

I cannot stress this point enough, look how "successful" the "War on Drugs" is....

You honestly believe a "Gun Ban" will work in the United States? You know Mexico has a gun ban? yeah, Its the wild frikken west down there..



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I promise, if you try and take my guns, there will be a whole lot more dead people (no not innocent people). Lets call them collectors. Someone comes by my house, asks for my guns, hell no. They try to force their way into my house, ill kill you.

If the police try and serve a warrant because i wont surrender my weapons, ill try and kill you. Of course id die, but ill take as many as possible.

Not to mention, good thing we have a 50,000 strong militia in Mississippi. Try and take our guns. A lot of people are going to die..

Seriously, give me death or give me freedom. Oh, and Guns enforce that.

----

I'm sorry thirty people were killed. That sucks, let teachers carry or put police officers on duty there and get over it. It is hard for me to sympathize when my rights are being attacked over this situation.

---

The guy that committed the crime is dead. Justice has been served the best way it could be. He is dead, that is it. You dont attack my RIGHTS as a law abiding citizen and tax payer. That means war, figuratively and literally.
edit on 18-12-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Logos23
 


The massive rise in violent crime rates portrayed for the UK is mainly media based hype and political propaganda ....It's not a secret.... the truth is out there.
yes, it is and i posted government stats some pages ago. see my history for the links.
(not msm, not opinion, not exaggerated, the stats legislators consider)


I don't have time to post links because I'm off to beddy bye's right now...but if you want to get a hint of what I am talking about in the meantime, look at the Wikipedia entry for " violent crime" and see what it say's about violent crime for the UK and the graph attached.
now that's priceless ... consult Wiki
... for factual information ... yeah, ok, you do that



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mark Harris

Originally posted by Xaphan
The last time I checked, criminals don't follow laws.


My God, I think you may be onto something, I was confused why there seemed to still be reports of murder, seeing as it's illegal and all. I'm sure as soon as I email the government pointing out your astounding observation they'll see how pointless that law is. You've certainly wrapped up this argument.

I can't believe I lived my life up to this point thinking that as soon as a law was passed, hang on a minute, do you think that same observation applies to any other laws too? I did hear reports of a robbery the other day but I thought there must have been some mistake. Why, this has put a whole new perspective on things, I suspect you'll go down in history for such a ground-breaking realisation.

Making guns completely illegal won't do a goddamn thing. People who want to do things like this would just find a way to acquire firearms illegally.

Now on the other hand, here is an idea I would support. People should only be allowed to possess firearms if they meet a certain mental health criteria, meaning that the government should be allowed to completely review the medical records of everybody who currently owns a firearm and anybody who wants to apply for a firearms license. If anybody has any kind of mental illness they would be denied the right to bear arms. I can already hear the crying and whining "But I don't want the government to see my medical records!"
Why not? Why would anybody care if some idiot sitting behind a desk that you will never encounter in your life sees your medical history? Do you honestly think that person will care? He/she would be processing hundreds of these a day and not give a damn about you or your medical problems. I had a dislocated knee when I was five, throat surgery when I was seven, and Chlamydia when I was 19 (ah, to be young and foolish again lol) but I wouldn't care if some government worker saw this. I have nothing to hide. He/she would skim over it and forget about it within 10 minutes, and I would never meet this person ever.

It's much better than completely stripping people of the right to bear arms. Just prune out the loonies.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Swills
 

why do ppl keep saying this ?

Fully automatic weapons are banned
NO, they aren't.
they are available for purchase with a special permit.
that ^^^ is not the same as being banned.


@ Asheliate

Then perhaps we should each be allowed to own a nuclear weapon in our household?
permission isn't the issue being discussed.
do you have a kitchen in your household ?
if so, then you're already are capable of creating a nuclear weapon.

the lack of know how or lack of ingredients is the ONLY thing stopping you from doing such.


Do you realize that if you are wrong
we're not.

then you are in essence justifying your ownership of guns at the expense of more innocent lives?
self defense needs NO justification.

do you realize that if only ONE of the six adults murdered had been "allowed" to defend themselves, maybe 20 children would still be alive, today ?
gun-free zones are a joke and an invitation to destruction.

clueless is as clueless does, hence, we have 20 dead children.


OK, so my nuclear weapons comment was misplaced.

But are you comparing me to Adam Lanza because I am "clueless"? I think you need to learn to control your anger and start using your brain.

So you want the teachers to be armed at school? That makes it even easier for a gun to fall into the wrong hands. We should probably give the teachers body armor too since Adam was wearing it. What a great vision of the world you have.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by KingIcarus
 


So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.

but what are the other stats of crime,

townhall.com...
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.


www.captainsjournal.com...

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.


abcnews.go.com...

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.
But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted. Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place. England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

ill take my chances with guns being legal ^^ since you know in both countries violent crimes rose R O F L



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
Making guns completely illegal won't do a goddamn thing. People who want to do things like this would just find a way to acquire firearms illegally.
Just prune out the loonies.


See, here is where you are losing credibility.

Where did the kid get his guns? Would he have had the same opportunity if guns were just held by the police? Would there have been more opportunity of someone recognising the danger and preventing the tragedy if the kid had to go to the extreme of obtaining illegal firearms?

I said it in another post, I have no dog in this fight but your points so far (1. Laws don't prevent the crimes they reference, and 2. Making guns harder to come by won't enhance the safety of anyone) just weaken your position. No reasonable person is suggesting that a ban on firearms would see the end of this kind of tragedy the day it was passed. This emotion based outright refusal to accept that a suggestion holds any merit as opposed to acknowledging it's advantages and disadvantages, it's strong and weak points and then refuting one by forwarding your understanding of how it is outweighed by the other only detracts from your position. The very best that can be said is that it is intellectually dishonest. Not only in all this are you condemned by your own words but also the refusal to entertain a reasoned and honest perspective is a failing which both 'sides' are guilty at present and just hampers the debate.

The above could well be wasted though as your 'loonies' reference just goes to exemplify the level of debate you see as reasonable and acceptable. You want to do what's best to support gun rights, perhaps you should be quiet.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Asheliate
 


OK, so my nuclear weapons comment was misplaced.
thank you for admitting it.
and yes, it was, given the incident at hand.


But are you comparing me to Adam Lanza because I am "clueless"?
where do you see a "comparison" at all in my commentary ?
"clueless IS as clueless does" is not a comparison, it's a statement of fact.
rather ask me such a silly question, quit demonstrating the stated result.


I think you need to learn to control your anger and start using your brain.
that's good advice, you should take it



So you want the teachers to be armed at school?
some would be good, yes, and some i wouldn't trust with a toothpic.
why is this difficult to understand ?


That makes it even easier for a gun to fall into the wrong hands.
no different than today or yesterday or tomorrow.

here's a question for you.
since it's ok for your kids to be around my gun at the park, the library, gas station, convenience store or local recreation spots, why would it be a problem at school ?

the rest of your hyperbole doesn't impress me enough to respond.
have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark Harris
 

if you ...

have no dog in this fight
then clearly, your concept of freedom isn't as important to you as it is to us.

and until it is, you're right, you have no dog in this fight.
please, find another bone to pick.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Given the statistics about increasing gun crimes in countries where they are illegal, I would have to say the best option is to impose restrictions on gun ownership. Ownership of multiple guns should not be allowed.
edit on 12/18/2012 by Asheliate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Mark Harris
 

if you ...

have no dog in this fight
then clearly, your concept of freedom isn't as important to you as it is to us.

and until it is, you're right, you have no dog in this fight.
please, find another bone to pick.


My God. Did you even engage your brain in consideration of objective points before deciding to offer that knee-jerk idiocy? The very last one might be particularly relevant.

Groucho Marx

A five year old could understand this. Someone get me a five year old!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
"I promise, if you try and take my guns, there will be a whole lot more dead people (no not innocent people). Lets call them collectors. Someone comes by my house, asks for my guns, hell no. They try to force their way into my house, ill kill you."


If somebody came to take your guns, it would be because the law of the land had declared them illegal. So it would probably be the police coming. A will to murder the police does rather make the case for not being allowed to own firearms in the first place.

I'm rather glad I don't live in a country with so many people who state so proudly that they will happily murder police officers.





top topics
 
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join