'If you carry fake guns - we will treat them as real'
- Thread starter Wistanley
- Start date
- Status
Egon Spengler
Master Member
I am happy to live in a country where every legal citizen has the right to bear arms
exoray
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rodann @ Jan 14 2007, 09:35 AM) [snapback]1397046[/snapback]</div>
Actually the above is the misconception, full auto (pre '86) weapons are 100% legal for civilian ownership at the Federal Level for all that can pass a background check, pay a $200 tax stamp, and get a signature sign off by a legal representative... Now your state or local laws might make it illegal or harder to own one within your area but there are legal "work arounds" to this as well...
Later this year if all goes as planned I will be starting the process to obtain some NFA weapons myself, complete with a legal work around since Illinois is a non-American state...
Actually the above is the misconception, full auto (pre '86) weapons are 100% legal for civilian ownership at the Federal Level for all that can pass a background check, pay a $200 tax stamp, and get a signature sign off by a legal representative... Now your state or local laws might make it illegal or harder to own one within your area but there are legal "work arounds" to this as well...
Later this year if all goes as planned I will be starting the process to obtain some NFA weapons myself, complete with a legal work around since Illinois is a non-American state...
Blad
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkLordVader @ Jan 15 2007, 01:01 AM) [snapback]1397355[/snapback]</div>
Then I'm happy for you too.
I prefer to carry something something different myself. Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
Nope - I wouldn't go anywhere without my trusty Swiss Army knife.
Then I'm happy for you too.
I prefer to carry something something different myself. Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
Nope - I wouldn't go anywhere without my trusty Swiss Army knife.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BingoBongo275 @ Jan 14 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]1397145[/snapback]</div>
You guys got independance over 200 years ago - but you still blaming us? :lol :lol :lol
I understand your point that the gun is seen by many as part of who you are. Its cool that there's still this belief that the people could revolt against a government if it so wished - even if in reality they no longer could. However maybe the downside of this "right" is reflected in the murder rate, and that some people feel they need to own a gun just to defend themselves?
Cheers
Jez
[/b][/quote]
This might actually matter if the one city in America that bans guns outright, Washington DC, didn't also have the highest per capita murder rate in the country. Clearly it's not the guns, then.
Not trying to stir the pot, here, but has anyone stopped to realize that one big honking reason we even HAVE those "lax gun laws" over here that someone mentioned...............is BECAUSE of the "great British Empire"? "Minute Men" ring a bell? Just trying to point out that we don't both have the same history, therefore not the same common ground, therefore not the same rationalizations. :unsure
Thanks for that picture, Tommin.Freedom from tyrrany, like the Virginia emblem says.
[/b]
You guys got independance over 200 years ago - but you still blaming us? :lol :lol :lol
I understand your point that the gun is seen by many as part of who you are. Its cool that there's still this belief that the people could revolt against a government if it so wished - even if in reality they no longer could. However maybe the downside of this "right" is reflected in the murder rate, and that some people feel they need to own a gun just to defend themselves?
Cheers
Jez
[/b][/quote]
This might actually matter if the one city in America that bans guns outright, Washington DC, didn't also have the highest per capita murder rate in the country. Clearly it's not the guns, then.
Guyver.Please don't chide those who have feeling on the subject are opposite to your.The DK was once one of the most firearm friend nations in the EU until Mr.Blair pulled a Bill Clinton on you.You may think him a great statesman but I unfortunately don't. What about the 80,000 Britains who took to the streets of London who to protest the handgun banand why does the UK ban the slae of handgun magazine after the ban and why is there a great flow of opinion to revise the ban? Please explain that to us. :cheers :thumbsup Thanks
Oh and Guyver my mother was Welsh.The true English
Oh and Guyver my mother was Welsh.The true English
tommin
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blad @ Jan 14 2007, 07:33 AM) [snapback]1397008[/snapback]</div>
There is a common mis-conception in determining a 'good' gun and a 'bad' one. Give me a choice between an UZI or a Winchester 1300, more than likely, I would choose the 1300. (for combat situations of course) Think about it for a minute. 00-buck is roughly a .30 cal lead ball. There are twelve of those lead balls in a single shell. When fired, they all come out at once. Many 1300s come equiped with a seven round magazine tube. Do the math and you will see there is a loaded capacity of eighty-four .30 cal rounds being dispersed by the dozen. Cary a few speed loaders and you're good to go.
BTW - you should see the comparison forensics on a watermelon between the two.
Sorry - just had to address that very common mis-conception regarding fire arms.
I used to own an old Ruger Ranch Rifle. Beautiful weapon. Replace the oak stock with the commonly used Bullpup case (or just about any other poly folding stocks available for that model), add an extended magazine, and it suddently becomes an 'assault rifle'.
There is a common mis-conception in determining a 'good' gun and a 'bad' one. Give me a choice between an UZI or a Winchester 1300, more than likely, I would choose the 1300. (for combat situations of course) Think about it for a minute. 00-buck is roughly a .30 cal lead ball. There are twelve of those lead balls in a single shell. When fired, they all come out at once. Many 1300s come equiped with a seven round magazine tube. Do the math and you will see there is a loaded capacity of eighty-four .30 cal rounds being dispersed by the dozen. Cary a few speed loaders and you're good to go.
BTW - you should see the comparison forensics on a watermelon between the two.
Sorry - just had to address that very common mis-conception regarding fire arms.
Chris Martin
Well-Known Member
I am happy to live in a country where every legal citizen doesn't need to bear arms.
The whole problem with this argument is because both sides are looking at it from a different cultural divide. Guns have always been part of the US culture. The obsession with them in some quarters is frankly frightening for a supposedly civilised society living in the 21st century. Some seem to think that they're still living in the wild west. In the UK, the opposite is true. Guns have never played a role in ordinary life. I can count on one hand the number of real guns I've even seen in private hands. You can't apply the same cultural creed of one country to another. And both countries enjoy equally good freedoms for it's citizens.
Our neighbour is an inspector (CID) in the police force. The argument for no guns in the UK is a question of escalation. If the average member of the public is allowed to have guns in the house, burglars will simply go in armed. Someone is going to get shot and not necessarily the burglar. The most important factor is no one gets shot.
You are allowed to defend yourself and property using reasonable force but this does not include killing a burglar if he's obviously unarmed. That is not reasonable force.
The fact that guns already exist in large numbers in the US may dictate why the populace need to arm themselves for defence but in the UK there has not and remains not the need and I feel safer for it.
gjustis
Well-Known Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pennausamike @ Jan 14 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1397155[/snapback]</div>
Ha. Paranoia is what drives everything in contemporary American society, particularly politics.
Remember....if you're not worried, you're with the terrorists.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gnrlotto @ Jan 15 2007, 01:25 AM) [snapback]1397370[/snapback]</div>
To form a clear picture of gun crime, you can't go by homicide rate alone. Take, for example, robberies: robberies are, more often than not, performed at gunpoint....this is a gun crime, even though no one got shot. Gun crimes are far more common than murders specifically (the most infrequent type of recorded crime). Homicide rates are a terrible indicator of rates of gun crime generally. Besides....how do we know that all of those DC homicides weren't committed by lightsaber or crowbar? Bottom line, we don't.
Just because one place has a higher rate of drug overdoses than another doesn't mean that there's a higher rate of drug use....it means ONLY the former.
On a side note, for Jan.-June 2006, Uniform Crime Reports prelims are listing the top three homicide per capita cities as NYC, LA, and Houston (Katrina effects?). Keep in mind, this is ONLY homicide rates, which again cannot be used as a proxy for all violent crime. If we look at robbery rates for the same period (often committed as gun crimes), Baltimore (which, in the UCR, we use as an approximation for DC, since DC isn't included) is far, FAR below other areas, particularly NYC, Philly, and LA.
(Woohoo. I finally get to do my crime spiel on a non-work-related site. )
Ha. Paranoia is what drives everything in contemporary American society, particularly politics.
Remember....if you're not worried, you're with the terrorists.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gnrlotto @ Jan 15 2007, 01:25 AM) [snapback]1397370[/snapback]</div>
Yea. That's like banning guns in my apartment and thinking that I'm safe from gun violence.
To form a clear picture of gun crime, you can't go by homicide rate alone. Take, for example, robberies: robberies are, more often than not, performed at gunpoint....this is a gun crime, even though no one got shot. Gun crimes are far more common than murders specifically (the most infrequent type of recorded crime). Homicide rates are a terrible indicator of rates of gun crime generally. Besides....how do we know that all of those DC homicides weren't committed by lightsaber or crowbar? Bottom line, we don't.
Just because one place has a higher rate of drug overdoses than another doesn't mean that there's a higher rate of drug use....it means ONLY the former.
On a side note, for Jan.-June 2006, Uniform Crime Reports prelims are listing the top three homicide per capita cities as NYC, LA, and Houston (Katrina effects?). Keep in mind, this is ONLY homicide rates, which again cannot be used as a proxy for all violent crime. If we look at robbery rates for the same period (often committed as gun crimes), Baltimore (which, in the UCR, we use as an approximation for DC, since DC isn't included) is far, FAR below other areas, particularly NYC, Philly, and LA.
(Woohoo. I finally get to do my crime spiel on a non-work-related site.
)
exoray
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gjustis @ Jan 14 2007, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1397410[/snapback]</div>
Actually to get an even better picture you need to determine the ratio of legally registered firearms vs illegal used in crimes...
And when you do the picture will probably change drastically...
Example the number of confirmed US crimes commited with a legally registerd machine gun since 1934 totals in at 1 by a police officer no less, there is also 1 other possible crime but it was never confirmed...
So obviously having legal gun ownership doesn't directly equal higher crime rates...
Actually to get an even better picture you need to determine the ratio of legally registered firearms vs illegal used in crimes...
And when you do the picture will probably change drastically...
Example the number of confirmed US crimes commited with a legally registerd machine gun since 1934 totals in at 1 by a police officer no less, there is also 1 other possible crime but it was never confirmed...
So obviously having legal gun ownership doesn't directly equal higher crime rates...
Oooo... a heated debate.. I love it.
I actually live in East London and would like to clarify the details, as I believe the above post missed out information and was therefore slightly misleading.
Harry, drunk in the pub, told somebody he had a sawn-off in his bag (maybe as a joke or as a threat, either way it was to be his downfall). When armed Police turned up they (while pointing guns at him) warned him several times to lay the bag on the ground, he refused and then raised the object inside the bag at the policemen.
Quite frankly in that difficult situation... I think I would have probably pulled the triggered too. If theres any question that it could be a choice between my life or your life, there really is no choice at all.
Of course it does... You said it yourself...
It is obvious that a percentage of gun crime is committed using legal weapons... it is therefore logical to conclude that without those legal weapons being available, some of those particular crimes would not have happened.
It is also logical to assume the higher number of legal guns in a country, the higher the number of illegal guns.
Rodann
Sr Member
Exoray, sorry. I was misinformed. I have always been told that it began in the 1930s, with Tommy Guns, and fully automatic weapons have been illegal for civilian use ever since. Just proves that if you throw enough drug money at it, you can have an advantage over law abiding citizens, I guess.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blad @ Jan 14 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]1397342[/snapback]</div>
:lol :lol :lol (Where the hell is the ROLLIN icon??..)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BingoBongo275 @ Jan 14 2007, 02:01 PM) [snapback]1397145[/snapback]</div>
:lol Wait- You want it BOTH ways? Talking smack about a US gun law that goes back 200 years........but NOT the Independence that it CAME with? :lol
I was pointing out that there are UK guys in here, talking about "lax" US gun laws, which are the way they are............ BECAUSE of..............the UK. That's like White people complaining that Black people like freedom. Taste the irony. :lol
Tommin, you *******. I see TWO weapons in that there picture with the car. You must be blind.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Blad @ Jan 14 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]1397342[/snapback]</div>
:lol :lol :lol (Where the hell is the ROLLIN icon??..)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BingoBongo275 @ Jan 14 2007, 02:01 PM) [snapback]1397145[/snapback]</div>
:lol Wait- You want it BOTH ways?
Talking smack about a US gun law that goes back 200 years........but NOT the Independence that it CAME with? :lol I was pointing out that there are UK guys in here, talking about "lax" US gun laws, which are the way they are............ BECAUSE of..............the UK.
That's like White people complaining that Black people like freedom. Taste the irony. :lol Tommin, you *******. I see TWO weapons in that there picture with the car. You must be blind.
exoray
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(treeboar @ Jan 14 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1397436[/snapback]</div>
I said no such thing, you are taking a giant leap of speculation that legal gun ownership = higher crime rates...
Are those that legally own firearms in the UK the cause of higher UK crime? If not why would you jump to an opposite conclusion for the US?
You have no way of knowing the number of these crimes that would have been commited without a gun or not at all... Just because guns are legal doesn't mean they are the cause of higher crime rates, there are a ton of variables that need to be equated with crime rates and guns are only a small factor...
It is obvious that a percentage of gun crime is committed using legal weapons... it is therefore logical to conclude that without those legal weapons being available, some of those particular crimes would not have happened.[/b][/quote]
Who is to say? And who is to say the fact that legal ownership of firearms prevented some crimes?
I said no such thing, you are taking a giant leap of speculation that legal gun ownership = higher crime rates...
Are those that legally own firearms in the UK the cause of higher UK crime? If not why would you jump to an opposite conclusion for the US?
You have no way of knowing the number of these crimes that would have been commited without a gun or not at all... Just because guns are legal doesn't mean they are the cause of higher crime rates, there are a ton of variables that need to be equated with crime rates and guns are only a small factor...
It is obvious that a percentage of gun crime is committed using legal weapons... it is therefore logical to conclude that without those legal weapons being available, some of those particular crimes would not have happened.[/b][/quote]
Who is to say? And who is to say the fact that legal ownership of firearms prevented some crimes?
gjustis
Well-Known Member
Really, this is a debate without an end.
If anyone here is familiar w/ the research on violent crime it's myself, and even I have a tough time making any sort of calls. Gun crime (and violent crime generally) are such complex issues that a "simple" stance for or against will be inherently flawed.
The bottom line is this, given the majority of research to date: with fewer guns, rates of violent crime would not decrease. However, fatal violent crime would likely decrease. Keep in mind, rates of fatal violent crime at the barrel of a gun are EXTREMELY low, so it often comes down to a cost-benefit kind of thing.
Think about it....although robberies are typically committed using firearms, very rarely are they ever used (less than 5% of the time). Robbery, a large source of gun crime in the US, is an act of self-benefit; to fire a gun flies in the face of what the robber has set out to do (get your money and get the heck outta there).
I recommend Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture by Wright & Decker....a wonderful, fascinating publication.
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Robbers-Action...n/dp/155553323X
If anyone here is familiar w/ the research on violent crime it's myself, and even I have a tough time making any sort of calls. Gun crime (and violent crime generally) are such complex issues that a "simple" stance for or against will be inherently flawed.
The bottom line is this, given the majority of research to date: with fewer guns, rates of violent crime would not decrease. However, fatal violent crime would likely decrease. Keep in mind, rates of fatal violent crime at the barrel of a gun are EXTREMELY low, so it often comes down to a cost-benefit kind of thing.
Think about it....although robberies are typically committed using firearms, very rarely are they ever used (less than 5% of the time). Robbery, a large source of gun crime in the US, is an act of self-benefit; to fire a gun flies in the face of what the robber has set out to do (get your money and get the heck outta there).
I recommend Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture by Wright & Decker....a wonderful, fascinating publication.
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Robbers-Action...n/dp/155553323X
Birdie
Master Member
Tain,
I know you probably don't intend it, but your blanket statements about the UK are very patronising, and come across as rather ignorant.
As others have already pointed out, Britain has never been a gun culture. Is it possible to miss something you never had? Your 80,000 protestors (never heard that before...sure you are not thinking of the Countryside Alliance? That's something totally different) would consist of farmers having their shotguns locked up.
As for our political situation, well I don't like Blair either, but it seems to me that people in glass houses...
Where you got the idea that Britain is one of the most repressive nations, I really don't know. Try looking at Holland, Japan and Australia if you want to find real zero tolerance.
And it might be worth reminding our American friends that deactivated guns don't have to have their receivers cut into pieces, unlike the USA, neither do they have to have the stupid orange plugs or trademarks removed. So in terms of replica weapons, I'd say our freedoms are actually greater than yours as it stands.
I know you probably don't intend it, but your blanket statements about the UK are very patronising, and come across as rather ignorant.
As others have already pointed out, Britain has never been a gun culture. Is it possible to miss something you never had? Your 80,000 protestors (never heard that before...sure you are not thinking of the Countryside Alliance? That's something totally different) would consist of farmers having their shotguns locked up.
As for our political situation, well I don't like Blair either, but it seems to me that people in glass houses...
Where you got the idea that Britain is one of the most repressive nations, I really don't know. Try looking at Holland, Japan and Australia if you want to find real zero tolerance.
And it might be worth reminding our American friends that deactivated guns don't have to have their receivers cut into pieces, unlike the USA, neither do they have to have the stupid orange plugs or trademarks removed. So in terms of replica weapons, I'd say our freedoms are actually greater than yours as it stands.
tommin
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rodann @ Jan 14 2007, 09:10 PM) [snapback]1397442[/snapback]</div>
Ivanhotep, you still with us, buddy? I can't get banned for any of my actions within this thread. You started it... :lol
Thanks.. I see them now.Tommin, you *******. I see TWO weapons in that there picture with the car. You must be blind.
Ivanhotep, you still with us, buddy? I can't get banned for any of my actions within this thread. You started it... :lol
voice in the crowd
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tain669 @ Jan 15 2007, 12:22 AM) [snapback]1397325[/snapback]</div>
Believe it or not we are allowed kitchen knives just we have to use them in the kitchen :lol
I am from Scotland and to be fair there is a massive knife culture and has been for generations. The amount of people carrying knives purely to use as weapons when they are out is very scary.
There is no reason in the world to have to carry a knife or sword concealed in your jacket in a city centre pub on a Saturday night.
Visit Glasgow or Edinburgh accident and emergency wards on any weekend after the pubs shut and then tell me it's not a good idea to take these weapons of the street. Honestly you would not believe how many slashings and stabbing happen in Scotland.
The days of Braveheart are gone when it comes to swords in Scotland :cheers .
Cheers Chris.
Believe it or not we are allowed kitchen knives just we have to use them in the kitchen :lol
I am from Scotland and to be fair there is a massive knife culture and has been for generations. The amount of people carrying knives purely to use as weapons when they are out is very scary.
There is no reason in the world to have to carry a knife or sword concealed in your jacket in a city centre pub on a Saturday night.
Visit Glasgow or Edinburgh accident and emergency wards on any weekend after the pubs shut and then tell me it's not a good idea to take these weapons of the street. Honestly you would not believe how many slashings and stabbing happen in Scotland.
The days of Braveheart are gone when it comes to swords in Scotland :cheers .
Cheers Chris.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gjustis @ Jan 14 2007, 06:19 PM) [snapback]1397410[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gnrlotto @ Jan 15 2007, 01:25 AM) [snapback]1397370[/snapback]</div>
To form a clear picture of gun crime, you can't go by homicide rate alone. Take, for example, robberies: robberies are, more often than not, performed at gunpoint....this is a gun crime, even though no one got shot. Gun crimes are far more common than murders specifically (the most infrequent type of recorded crime). Homicide rates are a terrible indicator of rates of gun crime generally. Besides....how do we know that all of those DC homicides weren't committed by lightsaber or crowbar? Bottom line, we don't.
[/b][/quote]
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gnrlotto @ Jan 15 2007, 01:25 AM) [snapback]1397370[/snapback]</div>
Yea. That's like banning guns in my apartment and thinking that I'm safe from gun violence.
To form a clear picture of gun crime, you can't go by homicide rate alone. Take, for example, robberies: robberies are, more often than not, performed at gunpoint....this is a gun crime, even though no one got shot. Gun crimes are far more common than murders specifically (the most infrequent type of recorded crime). Homicide rates are a terrible indicator of rates of gun crime generally. Besides....how do we know that all of those DC homicides weren't committed by lightsaber or crowbar? Bottom line, we don't.
[/b][/quote]
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Soundwave
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tain669 @ Jan 15 2007, 01:48 AM) [snapback]1397385[/snapback]</div>
I don't chide others who have opposite opinions than me, but when someone is claiming that the country I live in “is by far a worse place when it comes to the rights of It citizens”, then I have to stand up and disagree with you...being a citizen myself...I would certainly disagree with such an outrageous comment.
And I certainly don't think Blair to be a great 'statesman' at all, but guns were banned long before he came into power.
And what has your Mothers nationality got ANYTHING to do with this conversation??
I don't chide others who have opposite opinions than me, but when someone is claiming that the country I live in “is by far a worse place when it comes to the rights of It citizens”, then I have to stand up and disagree with you...being a citizen myself...I would certainly disagree with such an outrageous comment.
And I certainly don't think Blair to be a great 'statesman' at all, but guns were banned long before he came into power.
And what has your Mothers nationality got ANYTHING to do with this conversation??
bigbaddaddyvader
Well-Known Member
This is all getting a little too jingoistic for my liking.We now seem to be degenerating into some kind of nationalistic slugfest.
No-one in the UK is having a pop at Americans.We are discussing the rights and wrongs of large-scale gun ownership and the regulating thereof.
I can tell you from first-hand experience how terrifying it is to have people walking the streets openly brandishing firearms.Whether it be soldiers or paramilitaries-there is very little difference in my opinion.Sodiers are paid paramilitaries as far as I can see.
I don't consider the firearms regulations here as curtailing my freedoms one iota rather I feel they enforce my personal safety.
More guns=more gun crime.
No-one in the UK is having a pop at Americans.We are discussing the rights and wrongs of large-scale gun ownership and the regulating thereof.
I can tell you from first-hand experience how terrifying it is to have people walking the streets openly brandishing firearms.Whether it be soldiers or paramilitaries-there is very little difference in my opinion.Sodiers are paid paramilitaries as far as I can see.
I don't consider the firearms regulations here as curtailing my freedoms one iota rather I feel they enforce my personal safety.
More guns=more gun crime.
- Status