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

You have to start somewhere. Why not have an amnesty? increase the sentences for having a gun etc. It can be done you just need the will to do it.
But it will have never happen in the US. Remember Waco when the ATF wanted to confiscate the Branch Dravidian's assault weapons because they were illegal.

To me too many innocent people have been killed due to gun culture, so less guns, less death (the facts speak for themselves). I am happy with the status quo here in the UK, but if I did live in the US yup I would get a gun (I'd need it because from the sounds of some of the posters remarks we need one, sounds like the wild west at times....hehehehehe)

At the momment my conclusion is this.

UK is better off WITHOUT guns.
US is better off WITH guns.

The UK is a small place so disarming the population was not easy, but easier than is we were a large country and that firearm ownage was deep rooted in our culture and law. In the UK we never had "if you were pissed off with someone you shot them with a Saturday Night gun". Instead we have thugs beating each other up, so far Brits seem more reluctant to kill each other, this does not mean we have lower murder rates. It just means it's not in our culture.


From what I've gathered from US attitudes on firearms is that they NEED them. It seems to me that it is more deep rooted in your culture, law and population. You're just too damn big NOT to have weapons. This is not neccesarily a bad thing. Your country is free to do whatever it wants and should not compare itself to any other. If the UK gets on fine without firearms. Good for them!!


Though I still don't understand Canada, they apparantly have a larger amount of weapons, but little gun crime comparatively. Though this seems to be their more friendly culture. Not their laws. Correct me if I am wrong on this. I haven't researched Canada what-so-evarrr.

Vilham wrote:

lowing wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Whats that lowing?? Homicide rate more than 6x higher?

Are you comparing apples and apples there pal?

Do you have stats to back this up?

do i realy have to troll through tons of previous threads to find the links that show this? You have seen the evidence before when these kinds of threads have been before, unless somehow you missed them entirely. If however you go back 1-2 pages you will find that someone in this thread has already posted a link to the stats.

Just so you know it is Apples and apples. Its a rate. If it wasnt a rate it would be 30x higher.

Do I have to troll the internet and post stats of my own that counter your stats, very easy to do. google pro gun ownership and see what ya get, instead of Iloveguncontrol.com or Ihatetheconstitution.com

Ridir wrote:

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.

Sorry I found this quite funny. Yes that may happen, but isn't that exactly what the Iraqis are doing right now???

That was off topic. Don't reply to that, just made me chuckle.

We would have been crushed. Plain and simple. But we weren't because Hitler was an idiot, but we still had one damn good army and still have.

ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:

We would have been crushed. Plain and simple. But we weren't because Hitler was an idiot, but we still had one damn good army and still have.

Exactly. If America's army had failed and the country had been invaded by the Nazi's your guns would mean nothing to them. Their blitzkrieg tactics would have enabled them to fuck you up, they also wouldnt have had an problems with rounding you up and just exterminating most of your population. I someone is powerful enough to invade your country most likely little guns will mean nothing. This obviously isnt the case in the ME though as they support each other with weapons being smuggled illegally.

Parker wrote:

wrong again

O rly?

ts-pulsar wrote:

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.

And according to you:

Parker wrote:

pulsar knows his shit.

Now, this might not be quite so embarrassing if it weren't for the fact that it was followed with:

Parker wrote:

child.

Guess again.

Parker wrote:

although, i am debating firearms with someone who isnt even old enough to hold one

Actually, based on your laws I am.  And based on our laws no-one is (except farmers, IIRC).


Does it hurt to have your entire post fall apart?

commissargizz wrote:

I love the English people, I love their defiance in the face of tyranny, but what were they going to do IF Germany actually invaded Britain without an armed citizen?

Nice one, in WW1 and WW2 we didn't have armed citizens. We still won!

Gotta break out the ole' history books again and read up on the invasion of England during WW1 and WW2. Try re-reading the points made and get back with me if you are still confused, I will explain it my point in a different way.

Bubbalo wrote:

Parker wrote:

wrong again

O rly?

ts-pulsar wrote:

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.

And according to you:

Parker wrote:

pulsar knows his shit.

Now, this might not be quite so embarrassing if it weren't for the fact that it was followed with:

Parker wrote:

child.

Guess again.

Parker wrote:

although, i am debating firearms with someone who isnt even old enough to hold one

Actually, based on your laws I am.  And based on our laws no-one is (except farmers, IIRC).


Does it hurt to have your entire post fall apart?

You should know bubbalo.

Please do get out the history books. We didn't have armed citzens yet we won. Simple. Or were the Germans too scared we would attack them with our morris dancers.

Vilham wrote:

lowing wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Exactly. If America's army had failed and the country had been invaded by the Nazi's your guns would mean nothing to them. Their blitzkrieg tactics would have enabled them to fuck you up, they also wouldnt have had an problems with rounding you up and just exterminating most of your population. I someone is powerful enough to invade your country most likely little guns will mean nothing. This obviously isnt the case in the ME though as they support each other with weapons being smuggled illegally.

I don't think so, it would be hard to round up the civilians when the civilians are shooting back.

Our citizens in America are armed more heavily than the cops. Govt. needs to fear citizens, not citizens fearing govt. Anyone invading America would really have a world of hurt to contend with. Not bragging, but really a fact.

Your government doesn't fear its citizens its the citizens that fear other citizens which tbh is a bit of a fucked up way of living.

Painfully obvious, you have no idea what you are talking about, or have a clue as to what living in America is actually like.

You have tried to say some bullshit like this before. You think Americans live their lives in fear of the boogyman. I said it before I will say it again, if this diluted opinion of yours helps you validate your hatred of America so be it, I don't care. It is obvious your mind is made up so I will not try and confuse you with the facts of the matter.

commissargizz wrote:

Please do get out the history books. We didn't have armed citzens yet we won. Simple. Or were the Germans too scared we would attack them with our morris dancers.

Still waiting on you to re-read, or even read for the first time, the points of the posts. When you do you will be up on the current conversation on the matter. IF after you have read, you are still confused let me know.

Just so you know lowing I dont hate anyone based on their country. I have American family I definitely dont hate them.

I just hate ass bandits.