BF2S Forums Gun laws in UK - your opinion , plus the USA opinions of their law too

Turquoise wrote:

Well, all I can say is... The knifings in the U.K. prove that it's not guns that kill people...  You know the rest of the saying.

You might as well allow more firearms into your country, because as it currently stands, your criminals are the ones most likely to have one (other than police and military personnel).  A mostly unarmed populace is easy pickings for criminals.

Ill say one thing. Homicide rate.

Parker wrote:

that fire in full auto (M4 full-M16 burst, just like the game),

M-16 originally fired in full auto.

Parker wrote:

and the mac would be considered a machine pistol.....so they are all machine guns.

MAC-10 is a sub-machine gun, which is a different category.

lowing wrote:

commissargizz wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes, own all the guns you want, just abide by the laws and enforce the laws and the only ones that need t oworry will be the criminals.

And the people at the end of a criminals gun.

So you honestly believe you should have no right to self defense, no right to protect your hearth and home, no right to protect your family?? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, a thief has no desire to stare down the barrel of a shotgun either?

Why is defending yourselves so repulsive to liberals  in every aspect of life, from defending your countries, to now, defending themselves as an individual?

Comm: Whether you're stabbed or shot, it makes very little difference. You're still dead (or at least seriously wounded).

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-09 03:36:04)

Bubbalo wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Comm: Whether you're stabbed or shot, it makes very little difference. You're still dead (or at least seriously wounded).

But you have a better chance against someone with a knife.  Unless, of course, you're The One .

Mass, speed, skill and stealth have to be taken into consideration. A criminal with a knife is likely to have more experience and strength than his intended victim. A knife in the dark can kill as suddenly and readily as a gunshot .

Mr.Lowing, Yup I'm a liberal, actually I'm not it's I agree with some of their points I am believe I,m a hippie because I believe in love and peace, I am also a conservative because I believe in a strong military and defense, I also a socialist as some of their ideas are good etc etc etc.).
I can defend myself do I need a howitzer to defend myself. I do kick boxing, jui jitsu and MMA if a fucker comes up to me with a knife i will kick the shit outta him. Then I may kick the shit outta him again. But if he had a gun BLAM I could be dead before I even get mine out.

I have a friend from Tenerife who is original from Venezuela, the street robberies there are terrible. This is what he told me.....At first when you were robbed they threatened you with a knife, they got what they wanted and ran away, now a lot of citizens have got hold of guns the robbers are scared of getting shot, so they got hold of guns, now they just shoot the intended victim, rob them and then run away.

It is best (in my opinion) is to not tempt fate. I repeat 1 gun in the wrong hands is worse than 1,000 in good hands. Evidence shows the more guns the more deaths.

Can someone please find me some statics for gun crime.
IE. How many people were killed by guns, how many people were shot during a crime and of those people how many were criminals.

aardfrith wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ever think that maybe, just maybe, a thief has no desire to stare down the barrel of a shotgun either?

Non-issue if the criminal shoots you first.  And the longer range and more dangerous a weapon is, the more advantage a criminal has, since it is the criminal who initiates the engagement.


But you have a better chance against someone with a knife.  Unless, of course, you're The One .

Well I guess it is, if you are going to paint every scenario where you are huddled in the corner begging for your life while you get robbed. Try adding a pissed off home owner defending his family with a hand cannon into your mix of a nervous robber who is where he doesn't belong and not familiar with his surroundings.

Has that scenario reduced violent crime in your country, Lowing?

America is one of the safest countries to live in, and yours?

I don't believe in appeasement (but I do believe in talking first), but I do believe in strong punishment and rehabilitation.

So to be good you have to be evil?

Compared to all 1st world countries is the US really that safe. (I don't know).

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Mass, speed, skill and stealth have to be taken into consideration. A criminal with a knife is likely to have more experience and strength than his intended victim. A knife in the dark can kill as suddenly and readily as a gunshot .

But with the knife you at least have the oppurtunity to see your attacker approach/act suspiciously.  Further, every expert I've ever heard speak on the issue has said that an offender carrying a weapon is likely to be less capable than one without a weapon: they carry it because they are unsure of their abilities.

lowing wrote:

America is one of the safest countries to live in, and yours?

Which includes places like Sudan and Iraq.........................

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-02-09 04:50:02)

lowing wrote:

Well I guess it is, if you are going to paint every scenario where you are huddled in the corner begging for your life while you get robbed. Try adding a pissed off home owner defending his family with a hand cannon into your mix of a nervous robber who is where he doesn't belong and not familiar with his surroundings.

So, you actively search for people to rob you?

And you never sleep?

Are you Superman or Wolverine?

lowing wrote:

commissargizz wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes, own all the guns you want, just abide by the laws and enforce the laws and the only ones that need t oworry will be the criminals.

And the people at the end of a criminals gun.

So you honestly believe you should have no right to self defense, no right to protect your hearth and home, no right to protect your family?? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, a thief has no desire to stare down the barrel of a shotgun either?

Why is defending yourselves so repulsive to liberals  in every aspect of life, from defending your countries, to now, defending themselves as an individual?

Banning guns results in very few armed criminals.

It's a much better way to defend yourself that to allow both yourself and the criminals access to guns.

Before anyone tries to throw in the old 'but criminals will get guns anyway, so by denying yourself a gun you're vulnerable' arguement. It's a flawed arguement as the majority of guns in the hands of criminals were stolen off legal gun owners.

If we allowed legal gun ownership then the number of guns in criminal hands would skyrocket thulsy endandering ourselves, not defending ourselves.

Ridir wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

commissargizz wrote:

One gun in the wrong hands is worse than 1,000 guns in sensible hands.

*buzzer* Incorrect, try again. 

At least here in the US we have the right to protect ourselvs in our homes at the very least.  A doctor in the town I live in had a man break in his house in the middle of the night.  The doctor grabbed his handgun, confronted the invader, ordered him to leave or he's shoot twice and then shot the criminal.  He was not prosecuted.  Neither will I if I fill a home invader with buckshot.

And on another note and something many people don't even think about. 

An invading army is trying to quickly advance across the countries of the U.K. and the U.S.  In the U.K. the civilians run and hide and try not to get presecuted by the invading army.  In the U.S. the invaders are bogged down in every major city and all across the South.  Small militias have formed and are using their privately owned firearms to harrasse and distract the invading army.

It is how and why our right to bear arms was written.  If you are foolhardy or strong enough to attack the U.S. and can defeat the the Military enough to push across the land your supply chains will always be under attack and  your forces recieving daily harrassment.

One quick note for you. Japan tried that trick.

This happened.

Try harder.

Bubbalo wrote:

Parker wrote:

pulsar knows his shit.

Does he?  Three of the weapons he mentioned aren't machine guns.

I admit I was just using the term machine gun for simplicity, basically I just meant Class III weapons.  But for those that aren't gun people, it's just easier to understand Machine Gun, which most people understand as a weapon that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger.