Gun Banning - Why would gun control measures that didn't work in the UK, work in the U.S.? (Hungerf

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


You don't speak for all Brits I am sure, and the thing is, you are too comfortable. What makes people so comfortable in thinking that nothing could ever happen that they would need to protect themselves and not rely on the government? That is beyond me. You trust your government to keep you safe? That much? Really?




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Flavian
 


Yes, I have already given one in this thread.
First I will say, that assault rifle is a kind of non sense general term people have given to any gun that takes 30 round clips, which is a shame.

My friend was in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina. They were trapped in their apartment with looters taking everything in sight, no police, no electricity, they saw bodies in the street, and there was no escaping and no protection. That is a good time to have an assault rifle.

Any power out or natural disaster situation. Not to mention it's the right of the people to keep arms in case their country decides to practice tyranny. We have no idea what effect that seemingly dormant right has had on the struggle for power inside our political system.
edit on 19-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


Still doesn't make any sense to me but thanks for giving it a go.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Trust me, it would make sense if you were there. People were raping and killing inside of the relief stations the government put together. You would really hope a locked door protected your family in a huge city full of rapists and looters? It's not fiction it happened a few years ago. If you were in that situation you would give a leg for a good weapon and a lot of ammo.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Terms and Conditions of Use


15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.
edit on 19/12/12 by JAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Again, read my above post.
Crimes will be committed regardless of what is used to perpetrate them.

That doesn't mean we should disarm civilians, especially when you consider that gun crimes will still exist long past the time you have taken guns from honest civilians.

Also, everyone keeps getting off topic, I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the point of my thread. This isn't supposed to be a gun control argument, I am simply illustrating a point that is very clear and very obvious when you read the OP.


Let me try and make this as simple as possible.The idea of gun control is to restrict the amount of guns in society. By restricting the numbers of firearms then that reduces the number of people who have access to them, thus reducing the amount of gun crime.
Gun control is the only way to reduce murder by firearms as the figures quoted prove. How can you in all honesty argue against that?

You may find this of interest:-

www.met.police.uk...
edit on 19-12-2012 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
double post
edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


If something did happen where a weapon was needed, well i have a shed full of them.......axes, spades, pitch forks, hammers, etc, etc. Personal favourite is my very heavy cricket bat. Not only could i swing it, in the process i could imagine i was knocking Shane Warne for six at the Oval!

Seriously though, if anything happened, the scrotes with guns would be the first target for the authorities. Frankly, i wouldn't worry about them in the slightest (even if they weren't the first target).



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


sigh..

It's not about gun crime. The governments don't care about that. It's about control, hasn't that become painfully clear in the last 10 years?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Ok, well we are talking about millions of people here, but if you think you can hold them off with an axe and a spade, you must be a super sayan.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by alldaylong
 


sigh..

It's not about gun crime. The governments don't care about that. It's about control, hasn't that become painfully clear in the last 10 years?


Yes it IS about control. That is what i have stated if you re read my last post.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


I was waiting for someone to bring up the mythical "they".


Please, there are lots of arguments pro and anti. You don't need to go down the "they" route. It just makes you look like a delusional (*) conspiracy theorist.......on ATS..........hang on a minute...........



* I am sure you are not delusional individual in any way, shape or form.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


I told you who THEY are. The UN and the globalists. David Rothschild, the eco warrior to name one.

but hey your word is good enough



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You would be amazed at my ninja skills.

Look, i keep saying it is your country so it is up to you. I have also repeatedly said (in various threads) that an outright ban is not the way to go in America. However, if i may ask you a question, do you think the current situation of regular mass shootings that you have is acceptable? If not, what do you think should be done?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by Flavian
 


I told you who THEY are. The UN and the globalists. David Rothschild, the eco warrior to name one.

but hey your word is good enough


I take it back then, another frightening member of ATS. I know this is a conspiracy website but jesus, some of the paranoia around here is unbelievable at times.
edit on 19-12-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
This is actually an argument for gun control not against it I hope the OP realises this.

What the OP has done is list 3 mass shootings, the only three mass shootings in the UK in the last 25 years. In 25 years the OP finds 3 mass shootings in the UK, I can easily find 4 mass shootings in America in the last year alone. Does this not show that our system is working; there has not been a mass shooting with a semi-auto in the UK for god knows how long and there has not been a mass shooting involving a hand gun since Dumblane. The only logical conclusion is that banning the category of gun used works to reduce the number of mass shootings.

Yes since these bans the number of deaths caused by Guns has remained static but we don’t have a crazed gunman shooting up a school or college every other month and the reason for that is because we don’t let every man and his dog carry an AR15.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 

Reducing the number of vehicles on the highway (especially those "fast" sports cars or "fast looking" sporty cars) would go a long way to reducing car related deaths also....but cars are personal property and we still have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit. One advantage of firearms as personal property is that they can be used to defend individual and collective liberty as well.
edit on 19-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


The fact is though, those mass shootings in America are getting to be a regular occurrence.



Bullcrap! There are 100 million gun owners and have been a handful of incidents in the past 10-15 years.

And please explain what stricter laws would prevent, it's already against the law to murder someone.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

And please explain what stricter laws would prevent, it's already against the law to murder someone.

And against the law to steal (the guns) and against the law to possess a gun(s) within 1000 feet of a school and against the law to discharge a firearm within city limits.....



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

And please explain what stricter laws would prevent, it's already against the law to murder someone.

And against the law to steal (the guns) and against the law to possess a gun(s) within 1000 feet of a school and against the law to discharge a firearm within city limits.....


Lol.. exactly! People went bat-nuts crazy for stricter gun laws after Columbine and those two kids violated 20 something laws before and during the massacre.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Why weren't there huge numbers of mass shootings in the UK before 1988? After all, you could purchase anything available in the USA by simply attending a target shooting club. Shotguns, both semi and pump of any magazine capacity did not need registering and did not even need a certificate before 1967.

The mass shooting rate in the UK has always been low, even when it was relatively straight forward to obtain any firearm.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join