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

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The foolish brits had given up on guns and are mere sheeps and slaves to their overlords, even supporting them.

How fast they had forgotten Divine Mercy when the greatest english Queen of ALL time - Queen Elizabeth the First, faced the might of the Spanish Armada.

Even criminals were released from jails to fight for England, and while the serfs had no swords, they swore by their pitchforks, knowing full well that if Spain made a landfall successfully, history would have changed - England would have no Anglican Churches to speak of, and they would all be speaking spanish and be a province of Spain today.

Pacified and foolish brits that they are, they surrendered their rights and now find themselves at the mercy of swinging doors parliament whom cares not a whit to the sufferings and pain of the common masses. As the masses struggle with recession and austerity, the legislative used public funds for private gain, sipped tea and enjoy a game of golf at 4 pm, and the social dancing on weekends amongst the rich and priviledged.

The great Queen Elizabeth the First would have wept today to see how her citizens are suffering now. If she knew, she wouldnt have prayed for divine miracle and just let Spain gain control, afterall, it is no different then and today if it had happened, against the very grains of belief that she held for the great English masses potential.

Had gun bans ERADICATED murders and serial killers in UK now? Truth is, NOT AT ALL.

May our UK brothers and sisters wake up......




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I can give you the answer to why the Swiss don't have gun rampages like the US does. Yes they do have a high proportion of gun ownership but unlike the US those guns actually are in the hands of a militia, not any Tom, Dick and nutcase.

And in addition to that the chance of going on a rampage is non existent because they do keep the gun at home but they have no ammunition. Ammunition is subsidised by the state but must be used at the designated firing ranges where it's purchased for practice. It cannot be taken away thus a Swiss going on a rampage with one of these guns would have to club you to death with it.

The Swiss situation is NOTHING like the US situation where every Tom, Dick and nutcase can indeed have not just one gun but an entire arsenal and enough ammunition to conduct a mini war.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
They had already lost their right's to self loading rifles after the Hungerford Massacre. They banned those type of weapons and ended up with a handgun massacre in Dunblane. They promptly banned handguns and then, most recently, in 2010, they had another massacre in Cumbria where the killer used only bolt actions and a double barreled shotgun.

OP, not to steal your thunder, but I wrote a thread with an opinion of how these three instances effected the UK and how obviously the bans failed in a similar thread that I think goes well with this one as a supplement. Your of course supplies more info on Dunblane. You yourself might be interested in reading it: HERE



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Cumbria didn't happen?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 
Wow. You put one up 2 days after mine and I havent even seen it! I havent read yours but this one was not really for techincal coverage.....it was just an early warning. will take a look at the other, thanks.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


So you think UK gun bans failed? I'm baffled by this logic because it appears you're suggesting the US has a superior situation. Obama mentioned today that in the month since the Sandy Hook massacre there had been another 900 gun murders in the US in just that single month. The average British gun toll is around 30 to 35 a year so taking it at the low end the UK would need 30 years just to match the US total for the past month yet you think they have failed?

Are you suggesting that if they scattered their streets with 60 million guns to match the 300 million US guns they would then have succeeded in anything? You seriously imagine that would improve their situation? This incredibly low gun murder rate they have would fall even lower?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by oppozed1
 


What we never get over here is a profile of the shooter and conditions. It is a lot of data but it would show that outlawing handguns and the like would have little effect here.

And yet obama talks like he did yesterday that this is the only way to combat crime.

What we are seeing is on big lie. We dont hear anyone asking the crooks to turn in their weapons only the good guys. Why? Because its very stupid. Even the folks pushing for gun control no its a stupid idea. But joe good guy citizen, whos been doing what he had been told all his life and has much to lose if he went against a gun ban....well he or she can be mind screwed into thinking their gun has something to do with all of this.....so the gun grabers think.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by Logarock
 


Because a person doesn't (usually) set out to kill someone in their car, accidental killing over gun murder, you can't compare them.

Other arguments I have heard in this is that more people die per year undergoing surgery, but again it is a weak argument, the surgeon doesn't intend to kill the patient.


Why is that even relevant? The number of deaths are what counts, so the "purpose" of the method is completely irrelevant. If there was a device that had a purpose other than killing people, yet still resulted in 100 million people dying from it every year, would you still say it's okay for that device to exist because it wasn't designed to kill people? And just ignore how many people are actually dying from it?
edit on 1/17/2013 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Cumbria happened with legally owned firearms


Cumbria happened when a normal (usually), quite friendly member of the public lost the plot and had easy access to firearms.

Getting fed up, and quite upset of going over this.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by oppozed1
reply to post by Honor93
 


I can give you the answer to why the Swiss don't have gun rampages like the US does. Yes they do have a high proportion of gun ownership but unlike the US those guns actually are in the hands of a militia, not any Tom, Dick and nutcase.

And in addition to that the chance of going on a rampage is non existent because they do keep the gun at home but they have no ammunition. Ammunition is subsidised by the state but must be used at the designated firing ranges where it's purchased for practice. It cannot be taken away thus a Swiss going on a rampage with one of these guns would have to club you to death with it.

The Swiss situation is NOTHING like the US situation where every Tom, Dick and nutcase can indeed have not just one gun but an entire arsenal and enough ammunition to conduct a mini war.


That is quite incorrect.

First of all the militia is basically every adult male, with a few exceptions. They are issued weapons, usually the SIG assault rifle. They also used to be issued a sealed tin of ammunition only to be broken into incase of invasion, the government stopped doing that in 2007, so it was until very recently that the ammunition was there and no rampages up until then. However...

That is just what the government issues. Swiss citizens can own the exact same rifle if they want to buy it themselves and they can go to the corner shop and use their own money to buy all of the ammo they want. I have a Swiss friend who collects and owns 5 select fire rifles. You premise that they have no ammo is incorrect. My friend has several cases of ammo that he bought for his guns. The ammo would work well in his issue SIG, but why bother, he has a few more of his own.

Again you are wrong. Swiss citizens can have gun collections just as large as an American and they can have things that most Americans cannot: full auto and silencers.

Also, look to the Czech Republic: more gun fredoom than that of the Swiss and the Americans and yet a murder rate that is less than the UK.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Accidental deaths are just that, accidents, murder is murder.

The car = essential for transport (and saving lives in the cases of ambulances etc)
The Doctor/surgeon = essential for saving lives

Occasionally something goes wrong and people die, but that wasn't the intention (usually).

Lot's of people die falling down the stairs, but it was just accidental using something which was designed to improve lives.

The gun = designed to kill from the beginning, you can say saving lives, but that usually means someone has to die (or be seriously injured) in doing so.

Again, morally, you cannot compare unintentional/accidental death rates with intentional murder rates.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Accidental deaths are just that, accidents, murder is murder.

The car = essential for transport (and saving lives in the cases of ambulances etc)
The Doctor/surgeon = essential for saving lives

Occasionally something goes wrong and people die, but that wasn't the intention (usually).

Lot's of people die falling down the stairs, but it was just accidental using something which was designed to improve lives.

The gun = designed to kill from the beginning, you can say saving lives, but that usually means someone has to die (or be seriously injured) in doing so.

Again, morally, you cannot compare unintentional/accidental death rates with intentional murder rates.


First of all you didn't answer my question, which I take it means you don't have an answer. How about this then. Since the gun grabbers cite the around 10,000 murders by guns as a reason for banning them, what would happen if only 1 or 2 people died from guns? Would you still want them banned? If not, what number has to be crossed? The reason I ask is because it shows it really is about numbers, not whether the deaths are intentional or accidental. Otherwise why would you force millions of people to turn in their guns just because 1 person killed someone with theirs?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


I did answer your question.

Regardless of numbers, we still need doctors to save lives, we still need transportation to travel the increasingly smaller world.

I guess in some way we still need guns for hunting, for protection of the country.

What we don't need is civilians arming themselves to the teeth, then the occasional shootings which occur more than 10 years apart will suddenly become more frequent.

It's not about numbers, it's about motive and intention.

Is it fair that the actions of 1 or 2 individuals mean stricter laws? Maybe, maybe not.

Is it a sensible precaution to ensure innocent people aren't intentionally killed more often? yes.
edit on 17/1/13 by woogleuk because: Damn you autocorrect



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk


What we don't need is civilians arming themselves to the teeth, then the occasional shootings which occur more than 10 years apart will suddenly become more frequent.


Law abiding civilians aren't the ones who commit these shootings, so you failed to explain why they have to be punished when criminals are the ones at fault. Why not instead go after the criminals and think of ways to prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Cumbria: Derrick Bird was a law abiding citizen (for the most part), he legally owned his guns, he still shot and killed/injured a lot of people.

Dunblane: Thomas Watt Hamilton, legally owned his guns, bit of an odd character, but not a criminal.

Hungerford: Michael Ryan, legally owned his guns, as far as I can tell, not a criminal.

With all three, mental issues obviously played a big part, but the fact is, they were normal people, not criminals, and they snapped.

Lots more people like this reside in the UK, and if they had easy access to firearms it would be hell.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Cumbria: Derrick Bird was a law abiding citizen (for the most part), he legally owned his guns, he still shot and killed/injured a lot of people.

Dunblane: Thomas Watt Hamilton, legally owned his guns, bit of an odd character, but not a criminal.

Hungerford: Michael Ryan, legally owned his guns, as far as I can tell, not a criminal.

With all three, mental issues obviously played a big part, but the fact is, they were normal people, not criminals, and they snapped.

Lots more people like this reside in the UK, and if they had easy access to firearms it would be hell.



Except the guns didn't make them want to kill people, they already had that intention to begin with. Which means if they didn't have access to guns, their weapon would be something like knives, or bombs. What I don't understand is why it makes a difference of whether someone was shot to death or stabbed to death or blown up to death, they're still dead either way aren't they?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Exactly why we don't allow bombs either though perhaps you think bombs should be legal too. As for knives a knife is nothing in comparison to a firearm and that fact was highlighted on the very same day the Sandy Hook incident took place. On that same day a knife attack took place in a Chinese school when 22 kids were stabbed.

ZERO fatalities.

It never seems to sink in that in societies such as the UK where guns are virtually non existent there is no clamour from the people to have them. In fact the opposite is the case, tightening already strict gun rules is never a problem for the government because the people are behind it.

This US obsession with these weapons is exactly that. An obsession that appears to be a throwback from another age.

Undeniable facts.: Average annual US gun murder rate 11,000 to 12,0000

Average annual UK gun murder rate 30 to 35.

The British would have to be insane to ever want to emulate the US nightmare and the US has to be insane to want to continue the nightmare though it would appear more and more people now want to end it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I live in Britain and I have a perfectly legal gun in a case about twenty yards from where I'm sitting now. So i guess that no amount of florid prose can alter the fact that you're plain wrong.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Guns have only one true purpose though. Plus you can kill a lot more people, and from a distance, with a gun.

Knives that have over a certain length blade, and some other knives are illegal to carry on the street in the UK anyway.

That plus you are more likely to survive being stabbed than shot.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The correlation between gun ownership and deaths may or may not be significant. But if the the reason there are so many gun murders in the US is not the high incidence of ownership then one can only draw the conclusion that it's because a lot of Americans just like killing each other.

So as a country aren't they ideally suited to gun control? Unlike Switzerland or the Czech Republic whose citizens are apparently more responsible.






top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join