Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 18
19
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by oppozed1
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.



This tells me that either a small knife was used, the suspect didn't know how to use it, or the suspect wasn't trying to kill them. Unless you seriously think it's almost impossible to kill people with knives. Why did you use an example of people being stabbed but not killed? What if I give examples of people being shot but not killed? How about the Aurora shooting. 70 people were shot but only 12 of them were killed. More people in that shooting survived being shot than the number of chinese kids survived being stabbed. Using your logic, guns are safer than knives.
edit on 1/17/2013 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by oppozed1
 


Thanks for your reply.

Glad you have it here on record by the implication on your post that you would rather subject yourself to knife or other forms of violence than guns, as guns can kill, but knives and other forms of violence will only cut, hurt or cripple you for life.

As well as preferring to be subjected to the terror of knives and other forms of violence than to be faced with a gun, and if the law allows it, a gun by your side to protect you and your loved ones.

I wish you and your kind good luck, and may you never wake up in the disneyland you think we mankind live in now.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
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.


Yes, guns are designed to kill. However, sometimes deadly force is necessary. A pistol in the hands of a 110 lb woman removes the need for strength to take out a 220lb rapist. The firearm in her hands is an equalizer.

I take it your are not a medical professional as you are incorrect concerning knives being less "deadly." The only real advantage of a gun over a knife is removal of hte physical nature of weilding it so a weak person can protect themselves from a strong one and the distance so that a person need not close with a criminal to protect himself or others.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The only real advantage of a gun over a knife is removal of hte physical nature of weilding it so a weak person can protect themselves from a strong one and the distance so that a person need not close with a criminal to protect himself or others.


Those are quite big advantages though! And they make for a pretty serious difference in how 'deadly' the weapons are. I mean, if you were having a duel and you got to pick out of a knife and a gun which would you choose?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I never said knives were less deadly, just less successful at killing a lot of people really quickly before being stopped.

What I said about your chances of surviving being stabbed being better than being shot are true though.

EDIT: I'm not against firearms by the way, I have fired several rifles and guns, what I am against is certain weapons being made readily/easily available to civilians.

Shotguns and hunting rifles are fair enough, they can be used for sport, and/or hunting.

Handguns are far too easily concealed and are useless for hunting.

Semi autos, whilst good for hunting can be used far easily to quickly kill a lot of people.

Autos are just ridiculous, well, for civvies anyway.
edit on 17/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I never said knives were less deadly, just less successful at killing a lot of people really quickly before being stopped.


in 2010, 358 people were killed by rifles, and 1,704 were killed by knives or cutting instruments.
So why again is the debate about banning rifles and not knives? I'm failing to understand.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The only real advantage of a gun over a knife is removal of hte physical nature of weilding it so a weak person can protect themselves from a strong one and the distance so that a person need not close with a criminal to protect himself or others.


Those are quite big advantages though! And they make for a pretty serious difference in how 'deadly' the weapons are. I mean, if you were having a duel and you got to pick out of a knife and a gun which would you choose?


I'd choose a gun. It is simple common sense. If you have someone smashing in your door in the middle of the night, what would you rather have in your hand: a kitchen knife or a .45?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I never said knives were less deadly, just less successful at killing a lot of people really quickly before being stopped.


in 2010, 358 people were killed by rifles, and 1,704 were killed by knives or cutting instruments.
So why again is the debate about banning rifles and not knives? I'm failing to understand.

500 people were killed by blunt objects, including hands and fists. According to the death numbers, rifles are less dangerous than baseball bats. The issue is not really about crime and saving lives--that is just a smokescreen. The issue is about control and creeping incrementalism. "Assault weapons" are scary looking and the layman does not realize that they are no more deadly than any other rifle so they are a logical first step for those who want to take all weapons away form law abiding citizens.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I never said knives were less deadly, just less successful at killing a lot of people really quickly before being stopped.

What I said about your chances of surviving being stabbed being better than being shot are true though.

EDIT: I'm not against firearms by the way, I have fired several rifles and guns, what I am against is certain weapons being made readily/easily available to civilians.

Shotguns and hunting rifles are fair enough, they can be used for sport, and/or hunting.

Handguns are far too easily concealed and are useless for hunting.

Semi autos, whilst good for hunting can be used far easily to quickly kill a lot of people.

Autos are just ridiculous, well, for civvies anyway.
edit on 17/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


It is not about hunting. A woman can put a handgun in her purse and use it to stop a rapist. She cannot put a shotgun in her purse. A handgun is an efficient self defense tool.

Semi-autos are great for hunting. A quick follow up shot reduces the chance that there is a wounded animal running about. Semi-auto shotgun and a flock of geese gives you the chance to get your limit slightly quicker.

Full autos are not easily available since 1934, so that is not what we are talking about.

Again, it is not the tool that is the problem, it is the person behind the tool.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


First off, where did you get those numbers?

Secondly, I have already stated, knives are useful tools at home, they are banned on the streets over a certain length (under the length for hitting internal organs I would imagine), and yes I know, that wont stop the criminals carrying if they want, but it makes it less likely due to the harsh prison sentences.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by oppozed1
 


You are only baffled because you don't understand. First off, the ban is against "assault weapons" so it doesn't affect 95 - 99 percent of those 900 deaths.

Also, the majority of deaths will always be with illegal guns and in poor neighborhoods. Something extra gun registration wont help. Keep in mind, all of this registration and restriction legislation is aimed at stopping the one in a million mentally deranged spree killer, not average criminals. More gun registration wouldn't have stopped Lanza, and it won't stop the next drug deal gone wrong. It just steals people's rights and privacy.

As for the UK, you have the highest violent crime rate in the EU, and your gun crime is actually on the rise since guns were banned. Compare your gun crime before all the bans to what it is today. Before the first ban after Hungerford how many spree killings were there in the previous 20 years compared to 20 years after.

If you look at the numbers and think for yourself you get a better picture. You just gotta know what you are actually being sold.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


First off, where did you get those numbers?


The FBI.gov website.

www.fbi.gov...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That's America...............keep your statistics to American threads please.

We are discussing UK firearms laws.

EDIT: Sorry, that came off a bit cold, not meant to.
edit on 17/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Oh for christs sake, Gogo, you have been told REPEATEDLY, a large percentage of what makes up UK violent crime figures doesn't actually involve any physical violence.

The numbers are misleading, very.

As for gun crime, people getting arrested for owning unlicensed firearms (thus upping the gun crime figures) doesn't mean the amount of people being shot is going up....even if that figure has gone up, the gun crime statistics do not reflect just that.
edit on 17/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


What the hell does that matter?
It just shows that your previous bans did nothing to stop massacres from happening. He did almost the same amount of damage as in the Hungerford shooting.

The POINT is that you give up rights to be safe from these events and then some lunatic snaps, and shows you how well your legislation works by killing a lot of people. People have a right to defend themselves on an individual basis. You gave that right away.

The fact is people are going to snap and kill people, bad things happen. You make sacrifices for freedom. You guys in the UK are sacrificing freedom for so they feel safe (key word FEEL) and you know what they say about that?

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

So maybe one day you will get your padded room Woogle and you will be safe from alll the dangers.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That's America...............keep your statistics to American threads please.

We are discussing UK firearms laws.

EDIT: Sorry, that came off a bit cold, not meant to.
edit on 17/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)


The same situation is in the UK, far more people are killed with knives than guns. In fact the difference is even greater because that includes handguns, unlike in the USA.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


oh yeah, because the UK surpasses the USA in gun massacres, I didn't see that one.

1 massacre every 10 or more years on average compared to how many each year in the USA?

Nice to see all that gun ownership you guys have preventing them.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


How absurd.. you guys think you're free. You can't even carry a knife for risk of being arrested. You don't see how absurd that is? You have a high rate of stabbings because you are made to be easy prey for criminals.

I heard about this on NPR a couple months ago.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


That's because guns aren't as accessible as knives here, as someone already said, if someone wants to kill, they will find a way of doing it.

Making guns more accessible means more people could be killed far quicker.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


See.. what's the point in talking to you if you are incapable of understanding?
I asked how many there were in the twenty years preceding your gun bans. Even if you have less massacres, I want to know if the gun bans made them less frequent.

You are trying to get around my point and making ridiculous arguments.

I am not saying we don't have more massacres, but I am showing that guns are not the cause.

Oh, and gun ownership has stopped several massacres, so I would stick to talking about what you really know. The massacres also tend to be in places that are the least likely to have armed resistence. Movie theatre = sitting ducks, malls = preoccupied shoppers (though the clackamas shooting was arguably stopped by a concealed carry holder), schools = you get where I am going with this.

Why deny reality? Just to argue?
edit on 17-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
19
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join