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

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


So, again, why isn't the US more like Switzerland?
disproportionate gun ownership.
not enough US households are armed and the Swiss mandate EVERY household be armed.



Swiss homes have guns primarily because of the way they've substituted their military with a mandatory basic service. However, ammunition is very different. Very few of the households who have guns because of this demographic (the main demographic of gun holders) keep ammunition at home, and since 2007 only specialist police units keep ammunition for the military-issued arms.


and, as mentioned previously, the Swiss don't have gun-free zones, either.


Because their 'carry' laws are very, very different. Permits to carry are heavily restricted to certain occupations.


However, those only apply to issued arms and ammunition. A Swiss citizen can have a semi-auto AR-15 and ammo that he bought himself.


Yes, but the scale of gun ownership, which I'm referring to when the other poster talks about the Swiss 'mandate', is because of the militia issued guns. And the reality is that the majority of these people appear not to have ammunition at home.




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?

In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
Stolen from where? Legal gun owners?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


My dad, as a boy, bought a rifle in the hardware store. No age requirements, no background check. He even took it to school as he would hunt on his walk home. Yet, no mass school shootings in the 1930's or 1940's or 1950's or 1960's or 1970's, so your premise is incorrect.

This shooter did not legally own the guns, neither did the Columbine shooters, neither did the Pearl Mississippi shooter. If fact, most of the school shootings were carried out by people who could not legally obtain the weapons they used. Again, the law fails.

The problem is that all the laws and regulations in the world cannot stop a societal problem.All you end up doing is disarming the law abiding, sane people.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?

In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.


When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


So, again, why isn't the US more like Switzerland?
disproportionate gun ownership.
not enough US households are armed and the Swiss mandate EVERY household be armed.



Swiss homes have guns primarily because of the way they've substituted their military with a mandatory basic service. However, ammunition is very different. Very few of the households who have guns because of this demographic (the main demographic of gun holders) keep ammunition at home, and since 2007 only specialist police units keep ammunition for the military-issued arms.


and, as mentioned previously, the Swiss don't have gun-free zones, either.


Because their 'carry' laws are very, very different. Permits to carry are heavily restricted to certain occupations.


However, those only apply to issued arms and ammunition. A Swiss citizen can have a semi-auto AR-15 and ammo that he bought himself.


Yes, but the scale of gun ownership, which I'm referring to when the other poster talks about the Swiss 'mandate', is because of the militia issued guns. And the reality is that the majority of these people appear not to have ammunition at home.


Considering that there is no difference between issued ammunition and non-issued ammunition other than who pays for it, someone with ill intent could easily go down to the gun shop and buy the ammuntion to load into his assualt rifle and go on a rampage, but they don't.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Logarock
 


Yep and those people that took up their guns would have been rolled over if it wasn't for a planned withdrawal by the Redcoats due to an iminant invasion on the UK by France. Your guns did not protect you then, the French did. Your guns will not protect you now either.


Well the French wont....so better work with what we have then.

By the way our milita kicked the snot out of you row to row marching robots. Even if the french and a few germans hadnt been employed the countryside would have remained ours and the war never ending.

Another thing our lack to put together a good traditional fighting army at the outset was just part of our subjugation under the crown. And farmers with guns held you guys off long enough to put an army together.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?

In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.


When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.


Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?

In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.


When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.


Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?


Absolutely. If people don't own them, they can't be stolen or used for such things.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Considering that there is no difference between issued ammunition and non-issued ammunition other than who pays for it, someone with ill intent could easily go down to the gun shop and buy the ammuntion to load into his assualt rifle


Serious question: have you got any numbers on the amount of people doing this?


and go on a rampage, but they don't.


And again, I want to know they don't in Switzerland but they do in America.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Can we all start trimming the quotes? It's like I'm back on drugs again.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Can we all start trimming the quotes? It's like I'm back on drugs again.




It's seriously freaky huh?




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 

oh how lame ... the OP is directed to the media driven debate following a school shooting that resulted in new laws that have had minimal effect.

the OP was concerned about a MEDIA DRIVEN debate and the result of it.
much like you are trying to turn this into.

the links included in the OP specifically mention the 2010 Cumbria shootings but you seem to think they don't count, why ?

the laws were enacted in 1997, yet, crime has actually risen, according to some 'stats'.
1981-1996 - before the new laws

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
For most U.S. crimes (survey estimated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; police-recorded murder, robbery, and burglary), the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996.

By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981.
- snip -
The major exception to the pattern of higher crime rates in England is the murder rate.
The 1996 U.S. murder rate is vastly higher (nearly six times) than England's, although the difference between the two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years (below, and figure 5 of the report).
- snip -
the U.S. murder rate as measured in police statistics was 8.7 times England's in 1981 but 5.7 times in 1996

or this interracial violence report from 1997-2007 ... www.darklake-synectics.co.uk...

or this

www.reform.co.uk...
violence has increased as a proportion of all recorded crime from 8 per cent in 1997 to 20 per cent in 2007-08

now, we could debate the nuances between the two all day long but at the end of the day ... neither country is improving their respective problems.

and, you live in an awfully thin glass house to be throwing stones



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by KingIcarus
 

on the contrary, BIG reach.
gun violence is gun violence regardless who the victims are.

the statement was quoted and a question asked.
any chance you'd actually answer the question posed ?

you are connecting the school shootings with "poverty" driven shooters and i disagree, capice ?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Celebrated is a word of Irony given the current climate
why ?
no CCW holder particpated in this massacre and please don't get me started on the gun-free zone thing again.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yeah, once, comparing it to the school massacre that the OP was about. I'm not interested in arguing about this petty and insignificant issue that you created, or even reading your whole post. I told you what I meant, done. Move on.

Also, the population has risen by quite a few million.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by KingIcarus
 

ohhhhhh, a strawman strangler ... maybe you should trademark that name



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?

In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.


When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.


Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?


Absolutely. If people don't own them, they can't be stolen or used for such things.


You are out of here with me. I gave you a shot at making a case. In the end you just dont believe there is such a thing as a right that makes gun ownership legit and that rights are handed out and that the rights of all can be pulled by the actions of a few. yep one of englands brainwashed sons.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 

what kind of logic is this ??
either cars and deaths from them are comparable or they're not.
it doesn't apply when YOU want it to, get real.

and no, guns moving around on the streets is the SAME as cars moving around on the streets ... NOT parked


as for how many parked cars kill ppl ... i'd bet more than guns.
ppl hit parked cars allll the time, some die, some don't.

speculation, speculation ... try some reality, eh?

so you say, yet, you do it anyway
... remarkable.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


the Magna Carta was the foundation of our laws and Bill of Rights
yep, still clueless ... will they EVER learn ?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted 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.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.


It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?

In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.


When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.


Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?


Absolutely. If people don't own them, they can't be stolen or used for such things.


You are out of here with me. I gave you a shot at making a case. In the end you just dont believe there is such a thing as a right that makes gun ownership legit and that rights are handed out and that the rights of all can be pulled by the actions of a few. yep one of englands brainwashed sons.


You've missed every point that's been thrown at you and dismissed everything without making a valid point of your own. You've failed to see the very obvious logic pointed out in the post that you just replied to.

I not "one of englands brainwashed sons", as I said before I don't live in England.

That was just your way of backing out whilst attempting to look like you actually made a case.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join