Minority ruining it for the majority... again
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: :mad: Just noticed that you have a :mad: in your post but nothing in your anger rating.. trust me for nit-picking. Anyway. I agree with you. They shouldn't be classed as toys.. they certainly are not toys. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
David Wulff wrote: :mad: Just noticed that you have a :mad: in your post but nothing in your anger rating.. trust me for nit-picking. Anyway. I agree with you. They shouldn't be classed as toys.. they certainly are not toys. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
How ironic, I was too angry to set my anger rating... :-O
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
How ironic, I was too angry to set my anger rating... :-O
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: How ironic, I was too angry to set my anger rating... It's ok. We'll forget about it this time :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: going the same way as hand guns The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do), and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing. I also remember all the fuss at the time from various shooting clubs, etc. but no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? Air guns though, well, I know someone who got shot with one years ago whilst he was driving an open-topped car, causing him to crash and break one of his legs. I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer - and they never got the rifle back (besides, I think I bent the barrel when I twatted one of them over the head with it). However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon (though they are dangerous), so any ban would be sour grapes really. It's always the way though isn't it? We are "protected" from many things by unpopular laws, many of which are only in place because some people are too f***ing stupid to think about the consequences of their actions. So, I'll feel sorry for you if your hobby becomes illegal. Banning handguns is one thing, but air rifles seems like a step too far. However, as these guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, there should perhaps be tighter controls over who can buy them. I rememeber walking into a sports shop and buying an air rifle when I was 16. No problem. And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
David Wulff wrote: going the same way as hand guns The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do), and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing. I also remember all the fuss at the time from various shooting clubs, etc. but no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? Air guns though, well, I know someone who got shot with one years ago whilst he was driving an open-topped car, causing him to crash and break one of his legs. I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer - and they never got the rifle back (besides, I think I bent the barrel when I twatted one of them over the head with it). However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon (though they are dangerous), so any ban would be sour grapes really. It's always the way though isn't it? We are "protected" from many things by unpopular laws, many of which are only in place because some people are too f***ing stupid to think about the consequences of their actions. So, I'll feel sorry for you if your hobby becomes illegal. Banning handguns is one thing, but air rifles seems like a step too far. However, as these guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, there should perhaps be tighter controls over who can buy them. I rememeber walking into a sports shop and buying an air rifle when I was 16. No problem. And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do) And me, I only used it as an example of where things are heading. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Air guns though BB guns are not really air guns - both are terms for basically different types of equipment with significant power differences (air guns typically go up to 12lbs energy whereas airsoft and bb range from around 0.3 to 1 joule - the maximum legal limit in the UK for AEGs). Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer We get that reported on the telly round here sometimes - it is sick, but sadly as they do not resemble real firearms in the publics eye they never get any attention. Even so, they are age regulated and to an extent it does keep them out of the hands of most of the irresponsible wankers out there. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon My new air rifle (I settled on the Webley & Scott Tomahawk w/walnut stock, ordered yesterday!) could easily kill someone if you fired it at their head or an important organ from I suppose about 10-15 yards, maybe more. Most of the "legal limit" rifles will instantly kill a rabit at 50 yards if you can hit it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: so any ban would be sour grapes really The bb guns in question are deliberately designed to replciate real steel firearms in every way (except for the type of projectile, obviously). I probably couldn't tell the difference between my Glock 18C and a real one at more than 10 yards - so how are the ARUs or the public expected to? These need to be kept out of the hands of children. Just see how many of these you could identify as toys from a short distance (bear in mind they are full scaled replicas made of plastic, metal and wood so they handle realistically too)... Hand guns[^] or AEGs[^]. I certainly do
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
Sure, I'll give up my gun. Bullets first!
-
Sure, I'll give up my gun. Bullets first!
-
David Wulff wrote: going the same way as hand guns The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do), and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing. I also remember all the fuss at the time from various shooting clubs, etc. but no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? Air guns though, well, I know someone who got shot with one years ago whilst he was driving an open-topped car, causing him to crash and break one of his legs. I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer - and they never got the rifle back (besides, I think I bent the barrel when I twatted one of them over the head with it). However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon (though they are dangerous), so any ban would be sour grapes really. It's always the way though isn't it? We are "protected" from many things by unpopular laws, many of which are only in place because some people are too f***ing stupid to think about the consequences of their actions. So, I'll feel sorry for you if your hobby becomes illegal. Banning handguns is one thing, but air rifles seems like a step too far. However, as these guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, there should perhaps be tighter controls over who can buy them. I rememeber walking into a sports shop and buying an air rifle when I was 16. No problem. And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? The Dunblane 5-year anniversary was within the last couple of weeks but Blair's 5-year anniversary was several months ago. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. It's interesting how people only get upset when it's a sport issue, not when it's an issue of personal safety. Air-rifles, fox-hunting, etc. all have a massive (or at least a loud) backing group. Hand-guns didn't. But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? And has any reduction been among the group of people we intended to protect? I haven't seen any convincing stats yet. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! It does. It really does. For quite some time.:omg: Paul
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do) And me, I only used it as an example of where things are heading. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Air guns though BB guns are not really air guns - both are terms for basically different types of equipment with significant power differences (air guns typically go up to 12lbs energy whereas airsoft and bb range from around 0.3 to 1 joule - the maximum legal limit in the UK for AEGs). Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer We get that reported on the telly round here sometimes - it is sick, but sadly as they do not resemble real firearms in the publics eye they never get any attention. Even so, they are age regulated and to an extent it does keep them out of the hands of most of the irresponsible wankers out there. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon My new air rifle (I settled on the Webley & Scott Tomahawk w/walnut stock, ordered yesterday!) could easily kill someone if you fired it at their head or an important organ from I suppose about 10-15 yards, maybe more. Most of the "legal limit" rifles will instantly kill a rabit at 50 yards if you can hit it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: so any ban would be sour grapes really The bb guns in question are deliberately designed to replciate real steel firearms in every way (except for the type of projectile, obviously). I probably couldn't tell the difference between my Glock 18C and a real one at more than 10 yards - so how are the ARUs or the public expected to? These need to be kept out of the hands of children. Just see how many of these you could identify as toys from a short distance (bear in mind they are full scaled replicas made of plastic, metal and wood so they handle realistically too)... Hand guns[^] or AEGs[^]. I certainly do
David Wulff wrote: You shouldn't even point a dart gun at someone... Agreed, Pointing any sort of gun whether real, toy, replica, airgun at someone I consider a serious offense. As far as I'm concerned if a person points any sort of gun at another they should serve time behind bars. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Sure, I'll give up my gun. Bullets first!
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank god I live in the USA :-) May be all of us outside of the USA agree. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
David Wulff wrote: You shouldn't even point a dart gun at someone... Agreed, Pointing any sort of gun whether real, toy, replica, airgun at someone I consider a serious offense. As far as I'm concerned if a person points any sort of gun at another they should serve time behind bars. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I was taught that one never draws a gun without the intent to use it, and to never point it at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Even brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner without justification is a serious breach of safety, and the fact that it is air powered makes no difference. Banning any gun, however, is pointless and stupid. Banning idiots from owning them is far more sensible, and punishing those who misuse them is entirely appropriate. This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? The Dunblane 5-year anniversary was within the last couple of weeks but Blair's 5-year anniversary was several months ago. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. It's interesting how people only get upset when it's a sport issue, not when it's an issue of personal safety. Air-rifles, fox-hunting, etc. all have a massive (or at least a loud) backing group. Hand-guns didn't. But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? And has any reduction been among the group of people we intended to protect? I haven't seen any convincing stats yet. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! It does. It really does. For quite some time.:omg: Paul
pdriley wrote: But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? Remove all bans on private ownership of weapons, and I guarantee that you will see an immediate and lasting reduction. It has happened in every jurisdiction in this country that has allowed free possession of firearms to all citizens, without a single exception. The prospect of any random victim carrying a concealed pistol has obviously caused would-be criminals to think about their own mortality for a change:-) This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank god I live in the USA :-) May be all of us outside of the USA agree. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe... I'll admit, though, that it's hard to be certain of that come election time.:-O This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? The Dunblane 5-year anniversary was within the last couple of weeks but Blair's 5-year anniversary was several months ago. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. It's interesting how people only get upset when it's a sport issue, not when it's an issue of personal safety. Air-rifles, fox-hunting, etc. all have a massive (or at least a loud) backing group. Hand-guns didn't. But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? And has any reduction been among the group of people we intended to protect? I haven't seen any convincing stats yet. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! It does. It really does. For quite some time.:omg: Paul
pdriley wrote: Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. pdriley wrote: There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. Violent crime has nothing to do with it. What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. In fact, if the police were armed things would be a LOT worse. You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. pdriley wrote: Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? I would argue that we have and perhaps the ban stopped further massacres happenning - no-onme will ever know for sure. I would go further than this and argue that the ban on hand-guns wasn't introduced soon enough - it should have happenned after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. I am pleased that I live in a country where the population isn't armed to the teeth and I will wager that the gun laws in this country are NEVER going to be repealed. pdriley wrote: It does. It really does. For quite some time. No, it didn't hurt for longer than a few minutes. It was a weedy little air gun that had less kick than a wasp sting. Besides, I was 16 - and we've all done stupid things, especially whilst in our teens :).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do) And me, I only used it as an example of where things are heading. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Air guns though BB guns are not really air guns - both are terms for basically different types of equipment with significant power differences (air guns typically go up to 12lbs energy whereas airsoft and bb range from around 0.3 to 1 joule - the maximum legal limit in the UK for AEGs). Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer We get that reported on the telly round here sometimes - it is sick, but sadly as they do not resemble real firearms in the publics eye they never get any attention. Even so, they are age regulated and to an extent it does keep them out of the hands of most of the irresponsible wankers out there. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon My new air rifle (I settled on the Webley & Scott Tomahawk w/walnut stock, ordered yesterday!) could easily kill someone if you fired it at their head or an important organ from I suppose about 10-15 yards, maybe more. Most of the "legal limit" rifles will instantly kill a rabit at 50 yards if you can hit it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: so any ban would be sour grapes really The bb guns in question are deliberately designed to replciate real steel firearms in every way (except for the type of projectile, obviously). I probably couldn't tell the difference between my Glock 18C and a real one at more than 10 yards - so how are the ARUs or the public expected to? These need to be kept out of the hands of children. Just see how many of these you could identify as toys from a short distance (bear in mind they are full scaled replicas made of plastic, metal and wood so they handle realistically too)... Hand guns[^] or AEGs[^]. I certainly do
David Wulff wrote: Dear god! I hope you had an under the limit rifle for your friends sake, else I should be asking if he is still limping! I was teasing. It was a weedy little thing - it stung him and he got me back with his. I was 16 for f***s sake. We've all done stupid things, especially when in our teens. David Wulff wrote: it's called common sense and it does help to reduce accidents. Very patronizing! Lighten up for Petes sake!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe... I'll admit, though, that it's hard to be certain of that come election time.:-O This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
Roger Wright wrote: Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read so far this morning. The majority of the population from any country are sheep. They do what they're told and they even vote how their daily newspaper tells them. Sad really, but governments prefer it this way!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
pdriley wrote: Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. pdriley wrote: There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. Violent crime has nothing to do with it. What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. In fact, if the police were armed things would be a LOT worse. You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. pdriley wrote: Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? I would argue that we have and perhaps the ban stopped further massacres happenning - no-onme will ever know for sure. I would go further than this and argue that the ban on hand-guns wasn't introduced soon enough - it should have happenned after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. I am pleased that I live in a country where the population isn't armed to the teeth and I will wager that the gun laws in this country are NEVER going to be repealed. pdriley wrote: It does. It really does. For quite some time. No, it didn't hurt for longer than a few minutes. It was a weedy little air gun that had less kick than a wasp sting. Besides, I was 16 - and we've all done stupid things, especially whilst in our teens :).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. You're right. My mistake. I'm wondering where the hell I got that from :) I'm sure it was only a couple of weeks ago I was hearing about the five year anniversary - must have been something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. A sawn-off shotgun is and always has been impossible to obtain legally. The problem is that even a handgun is something that someone determined enough can source and I don't understand how there can be a stigma about handguns and not about sawn-off shotguns which rarely create a clean kill, which one would think should be the aim of anyone willing to kill. This just makes no sense. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I would argue that we have And you would base that assumption on what statistics? The stats I have show no significant decrease in handgun related crime from 96-00 and a marked increase during 00-01. If you have something more convincing than the national crime statistics, please present them but you can't make something true by "arguing" it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. Evidence, here and abroad, suggests otherwise. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. The problem is that many of them go out armed already and have very little fear that when they break into a house someone's going to be sat there with their own line of defense. I understand where you're coming from, I was bought up in a middle-class area, I live in one now. But I've also lived in places where Saturday night is just "the night when someone else got shot" and every noise at night could be an armed burglar
-
Roger Wright wrote: Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read so far this morning. The majority of the population from any country are sheep. They do what they're told and they even vote how their daily newspaper tells them. Sad really, but governments prefer it this way!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
:laugh:Quite! "How lucky for governments that people don't like to think for themselves" - Adolf Hitler Paul
-
pdriley wrote: Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. pdriley wrote: There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. Violent crime has nothing to do with it. What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. In fact, if the police were armed things would be a LOT worse. You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. pdriley wrote: Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? I would argue that we have and perhaps the ban stopped further massacres happenning - no-onme will ever know for sure. I would go further than this and argue that the ban on hand-guns wasn't introduced soon enough - it should have happenned after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. I am pleased that I live in a country where the population isn't armed to the teeth and I will wager that the gun laws in this country are NEVER going to be repealed. pdriley wrote: It does. It really does. For quite some time. No, it didn't hurt for longer than a few minutes. It was a weedy little air gun that had less kick than a wasp sting. Besides, I was 16 - and we've all done stupid things, especially whilst in our teens :).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Incidentally, just cruising around for some more information, I came across this: http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=874132002[^] If this doesn't demonstrate my point behind the sickening imbalance between the power of the personal defense argument against the power of the sporting rights argument, I don't know what does. :rolleyes: Paul