UK.. We Messed Up Letting The Government Take Our Guns..

page: 21
88
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by Suspiria
Evan, I loves ya..But you are either drunk again or trying to get off with some American bird on here..


Oh well played, well played indeed!


I do not resemble that remark... Though if there are any kinky American babes out there up for it.. I am certainly game..
edit on 16-1-2013 by EvanB because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by Suspiria
Evan, I loves ya..But you are either drunk again or trying to get off with some American bird on here..


Oh well played, well played indeed!


I do not resemble that remark... Though if there are any kinky American babes out there up for it it.. I am certainly game..


I would look to that Country East of you with the big tower that makes cheese & wine for that! A majority of American woman are not kinky...
edit on 16-1-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by StarBoy
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Do you really want me to go over the history of human civilization?

The queen?


Really?


You need at least 10 million armed queens to save you from an extremist government.


You couldn't be more wrong. The Queen is a far more effective deterrent to an extremist government than all the Americans guns.

You do realise that it is her majestys government and that she has the power to dissolve parliament and dismiss the prime minister .

She is also head of the armed forces and all the officers hold their commissions from her.

In the fanciful and ridiculously improbable scenario of a rogue government there is no doubt the Queen could end it all in a moment.


I am sure that she can wave her hand and make all the bad men go away.


Sorry to burst your bubble , she's a figurehead and has no power whatsoever, if the government went rogue the only thing she would/could do is acquiece.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by Suspiria
Evan, I loves ya..But you are either drunk again or trying to get off with some American bird on here..


Oh well played, well played indeed!


I do not resemble that remark... Though if there are any kinky American babes out there up for it it.. I am certainly game..


I would look to that Country East of you with the big tower that makes cheese & wine for that! A majority of American woman are not kinky...
edit on 16-1-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)


I beg to differ.... I had a liaison with a couple of American ladies in Hamburg in Germany.... They were plenty kinky



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ultimatelizardman
 


it's easy to cherry pick cases, but those responsible for the dunblane, hungerford and cumbria shootings were all older than 25 (as if thats the issue), not that they were career criminals as far as i know.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB

We in the UK like sheep willingly gave up our arms via fear based propaganda and marketing which has allowed successive governments to ride rough shod over us with impunity..




Originally posted by EvanB

Getting a little sick of people trying to talk for me...



Yet you can speak for a country?

edit on 16-1-2013 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Why are americans constantly banging on saying that the people of the UK don't have guns when it has been mentioned at least 8 times that i've seen on this thread alone that they DO! And do so LEGALLY. Anyone there can own guns providing they can store them correctly, old enough, have no violent criminal background or not a nut job.

I find it rather endearing that americans trust each other enough to be armed to the teeth, if it works out for them then maybe we should all take it on board as a blueprint for Utopia.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Try You Tube, "the battle of Athens". Not a well publicized event, to say the least......



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by maintainright
 


Fair enough


I was a bit conservative. But then I come from an non gun owning family who has never had any desire to own a gun and who has never known anyone except some Highland stalkers and a few farmers who ever want to own guns - which actually means I probably know more people he own/want to own (legally) guns than most people in Britain.

We're not like the USA, are we


Edit: anyway, we're not in disagreement. Except with the OP. Who seems to me to be one in 70 million .....
edit on 16-1-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


nope we sure aren't
but differences are just as good as common ground imo

I'm not pro or anti gun, it's just a lump of metal

but I am pro responsible adults being allowed to do what they like as long as they aren't hurting anyone



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Don't mean to derail the thread further but you may have a point. only, using that logic shows "gun-control" will NEVER work for the U.S unless we completely disarm most of South America(or cure their drug cartel/gang problems)

Which also further illustrates why you can not compare the two. if the U.K was connected to a country like Mexico, your crime rate would be exponentially greater too. I'm not saying it's the only cause of crime here in the states, but it's definitely one of the leading factors.

Now, if stringent "gun-control" worked for the people U.K, Great! but this approach will not and can not work for our constitutional republic here across the pond.

"gun-control" is more of a band-aid then a fix. only thing you did was push the deaths down to a "acceptable" level and the problem sure isn't shrinking as the years go by. for both the U.S and the U.K.(look at the crime rate for both countries before the 1960s and compare it to now...)

sorry for pushing further off topic.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesPeak
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Don't mean to derail the thread further but you may have a point. only, using that logic shows "gun-control" will NEVER work for the U.S unless we completely disarm most of South America(or cure their drug cartel/gang problems)

Which also further illustrates why you can not compare the two. if the U.K was connected to a country like Mexico, your crime rate would be exponentially greater too. I'm not saying it's the only cause of crime here in the states, but it's definitely one of the leading factors.

Now, if stringent "gun-control" worked for the people U.K, Great! but this approach will not and can not work for our constitutional republic here across the pond.

"gun-control" is more of a band-aid then a fix. only thing you did was push the deaths down to a "acceptable" level and the problem sure isn't shrinking as the years go by. for both the U.S and the U.K.(look at the crime rate for both countries before the 1960s and compare it to now...)

sorry for pushing further off topic.



thats a mahoosive can of worms to open up that is... *steps away from keyboard*

i'm done!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesPeak
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Don't mean to derail the thread further but you may have a point. only, using that logic shows "gun-control" will NEVER work for the U.S unless we completely disarm most of South America(or cure their drug cartel/gang problems)

Which also further illustrates why you can not compare the two. if the U.K was connected to a country like Mexico, your crime rate would be exponentially greater too. I'm not saying it's the only cause of crime here in the states, but it's definitely one of the leading factors.

Now, if stringent "gun-control" worked for the people U.K, Great! but this approach will not and can not work for our constitutional republic here across the pond.

"gun-control" is more of a band-aid then a fix. only thing you did was push the deaths down to a "acceptable" level and the problem sure isn't shrinking as the years go by. for both the U.S and the U.K.(look at the crime rate for both countries before the 1960s and compare it to now...)

sorry for pushing further off topic.



Murder + manslaughter across England and Wales (all the stats I have to hand) last year totalled 636. That's not just gun related, that's in total. Isn't deaths the key thing if that is what you want to discuss?

www.bbc.co.uk...

The link is a little spurious, but covers the number.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
it's easy to cherry pick cases, but those responsible for the dunblane, hungerford and cumbria shootings were all older than 25 (as if thats the issue), not that they were career criminals as far as i know.



firstly, what you have said about these men being normal people who do not belong to a high-risk demographic suddenly committing a crime as heinous as indiscriminate mass murder actually shows why people should be allowed to own and carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense.

Secondly, these men would have used illegally purchased firearms, molotov cocktails, makeshift explosives, poisons and/or vehicles to take out their anger on the innocent if they did not have access to legal firearms.
To make matters worse, many of these methods could easily have resulted in more deaths than a mass shooting.

Thirdly, mass killings are an exception to the rule. In general the most heinous of random crimes are committed by those in the 15 to 25 year old demographic.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
People are just running around in circles here. Some seem uneducated on UK guns.

We can have guns in the UK, however there are restrictions.

Lemme just clear up some things:

1: We can have any .22 rimfire semi automatic rifles.

2: Handguns aren't illegal only those with a barrel of 30CM or less. There are excemptions.

* Black powder hands guns are allowed of any size.

* You could own Long barrelled .357 magnum cartridge revolver if you wanted to even .45

3: We can own shotguns.

Infact the only restriction we have on guns, are:

We can't have short handguns

Semi automatics are limited to .22

We have to have thorough background checks, Mental health, criminal records.

We need to be part of a gun club or have permission to shoot on private land

We have to have to references from people who aren't family who know us.

We need a secure location to keep the firearms.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Tsara because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkmoon1972
reply to post by Alfie1
 


When electoral mandate fails, as it does frequently, if the right choice can be made through fear of reprisal and that choice ultimately protects the people, then YES. I do believe that the violent or potentially violent response is warranted.

Just look at the GOP in the US right now. They repeatedly go contrary to the will of the people. This is a situation where elected officials are failing to do their jobs as elected by the people. How else can we get them to do the right thing.
Look at parenting. Part of what gets your children to follow the rules is fear of punishment. Be that punishment being placed in a corner for a time, spanked or having their favorite toy taken away it is the fear that makes the rules stick. Adults are no different. If our governments will not follow the will of the people, the people must have a way to force them. That is just one of the precepts the USA was founded upon.
I will keep my guns thank you very much and hope that I never have cause to use them. In truth, I would be perfectly happy to leave them in the cabinet and only pull one out when I want to kill some dastardly paper for fun. I have no desire for violence, in far too lazy for that. However, I want the option to be available should things take a turn for the worse.

Very well said. The only people who bring up the gun issue for debate are the people who want to take our guns away. Gun owners out here are not fostering the debate. I say for all who can read this. and I wish this thought would go viral.
In America the guns are the rubicon. All patriots far and wide mark those in the media and government who foster this debate and when the war comes that none of us want, make sure they are on the front lines.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultimatelizardman

Originally posted by skalla
it's easy to cherry pick cases, but those responsible for the dunblane, hungerford and cumbria shootings were all older than 25 (as if thats the issue), not that they were career criminals as far as i know.



firstly, what you have said about these men being normal people who do not belong to a high-risk demographic suddenly committing a crime as heinous as indiscriminate mass murder actually shows why people should be allowed to own and carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense.

Secondly, these men would have used illegally purchased firearms, molotov cocktails, makeshift explosives, poisons and/or vehicles to take out their anger on the innocent if they did not have access to legal firearms.
To make matters worse, many of these methods could easily have resulted in more deaths than a mass shooting.

Thirdly, mass killings are an exception to the rule. In general the most heinous of random crimes are committed by those in the 15 to 25 year old demographic.



i think indiscriminate mass murder is heinous by anyone's estimation, and we are talking about gun law in the uk here, though of course the topic has veered from side to side as is to be expected.
i was taking issue with your entirely subjective and unsubstantiated claims about national characteristics, behaviours and the frequency of certain crimes for which you have provided no evidence except your own heresay from afar.
i feel that the lack of frequency of mass shootings in the uk (easily compared to the US's tragic mass shootings though we are very very different countries) stands as its own evidence that we dont need to walk around packing heat. i'm very happy with it that way, i've lived in four UK cities (manchester, birmingham, sheffield and wolverhampton - all with more than their fair share of crime and social problems) and personally felt safe enough using my common sense rather than weapons.

Edit: ps: thanks for dragging me back in lol i have other stuff i really need to do
edit on 16-1-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by skalla because: added the word "need" to my first edit



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsara
We need to be part of a gun club or have permission to shoot on private land

We have to have to references from people who aren't family who know us.

We need a secure location to keep the firearms.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Tsara because: (no reason given)



These are the three main problems with gun the laws in most European countries. Not only are they spiteful hindrances, but they are designed to make it impossible to have a firearm for the purpose of self-defense via the "safe storage" rules.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
i think indiscriminate mass murder is heinous by anyone's estimation, and we are talking about gun law in the uk here, though of course the topic has veered from side to side as is to be expected.
i was taking issue with your entirely subjective and unsubstantiated claims about national characteristics, behaviours and the frequency of certain crimes for which you have provided no evidence except your own heresay from afar.
i feel that the lack of frequency of mass shootings in the uk (easily compared to the US's tragic mass shootings though we are very very different countries) stands as its own evidence that we dont need to walk around packing heat. i'm very happy with it that way, i've lived in four UK cities (manchester, birmingham, sheffield and wolverhampton - all with more than their fair share of crime and social problems) and personally felt safe enough using my common sense rather than weapons.


Firstly, how do you explain the high frequency of mass killings in China and Belgium, two countries (with vastly different populations) where obtaining a firearm is just as hard as in the UK?

Secondly, what gives you the right to tell others that they don't need a weapon for self-defense? Only the individual can decide on whether he needs to own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense, not "the majority" and certainly not the government.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ototheb85

Originally posted by misscurious
NO we didn't .. why do we need guns here?

Actually re reading your post I've never heard so Much nonsense.. so instead of demonstrating peacefully we take to the streets with guns? I'm glad we don't have more people like you livng here...
edit on 15-1-2013 by misscurious because: (no reason given)


I could not have agreed with your more!!! I don't want my daughter growing up around guns!. no way! im happy the way it is! peaceful protests all the way!


A peaceful protest would save your daughter from being jumped, stabbed, or raped?





new topics
 
88
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join