locodude
|
| posted on 26/12/04 at 11:28 PM |
|
|
With the exception of those enlightened few you're all talking sh1te. I do have a vested interest in this debate as the authorities decided that
because an inept Scottish Chief Constable let a certified lunatic have a firearms licence that they would take mine and evey other law abiding
firearms owners guns off them. (1 x 9mm, 1 x .45, 1 x .357 and 1 x .44. all used for target shooting). Do you know how many deaths each year are
caused by vehicles? Ban them I say, let's walk everywhere!
|
|
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 27/12/04 at 12:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
quote:
Air rifles must have a muzzle velocity of no more than 12fps, air pistols, 6 fps. Any more and they are classed as firearms and will get you
locked up.
As in the pellets move at no more than 12FPS? Isn't that like fast walking speed? ^__^
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 27/12/04 at 12:16 AM |
|
|
Feet pounds Benzine.
Keen on the subject are you 
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
krlthms
|
| posted on 27/12/04 at 01:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locodude
With the exception of those enlightened few you're all talking sh1te. I do have a vested interest in this debate as the authorities decided that
because an inept Scottish Chief Constable let a certified lunatic have a firearms licence that they would take mine and evey other law abiding
firearms owners guns off them. (1 x 9mm, 1 x .45, 1 x .357 and 1 x .44. all used for target shooting). Do you know how many deaths each year are
caused by vehicles? Ban them I say, let's walk everywhere!
Loco,
It is unfortunate that you want to lower and personlize the debate. Here we go:
1. The guns you mention are not target practice guns; they are specifically designed to kill people, at short range, and just because you fire them in
a firing range does not make you a sportsman. For target practice there are special, and much more accurate guns. You don't see army, police
etc carrying target pistols, and you don't see olympic target shooters firing Colt .45s, so your point is bogus.
2. True, cars kill people, mostly accidentally, but some times delibrately. However the question you should be asking is what percentage of cars, on
the road today or in total, have killed people, and comapre this with any type or make of handgun.
But you knew this anyway, and your false outrage does not advance the debate, but insults the memory of those innocents that have been killed by guns
in Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine, and numerous other places.
So, who is talking sh1te?
Cheers
KT
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 27/12/04 at 02:12 AM |
|
|
I know someone who was the legal owner of a .44 magnum and I feel a lot safer knowing that he is no longer in possession of this. If he had a
psychiatric examination he would never have been allowed to own a gun. He was a milkman, for f*%ks sake, what did he need a gun for. Skimmed milk
theft was never the top crime in U.K..
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 27/12/04 at 08:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I know someone who was the legal owner of a .44 magnum and I feel a lot safer knowing that he is no longer in possession of this. If he had a
psychiatric examination he would never have been allowed to own a gun. He was a milkman, for f*%ks sake, what did he need a gun for. Skimmed milk
theft was never the top crime in U.K..
I'm fully agree with you Pete,a lot of people should not have the right to own a gun.
A lot of people should not have a drivers license to.
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 27/12/04 at 08:41 AM |
|
|
2. True, cars kill people, mostly accidentally, but some times delibrately. However the question you should be asking is what percentage of cars, on
the road today or in total, have killed people, and comapre this with any type or make of handgun.
But you knew this anyway, and your false outrage does not advance the debate, but insults the memory of those innocents that have been killed by guns
in Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine, and numerous other places.
So, who is talking sh1te?
Cheers
KT
What about the memory of those killed with cars KT.
How many people are killed in traffic without the traffic law been broken by any of the involved ?,not too many i guess.
Causing a deadly crash at 150 mph or ignoring traffic rules is no accident but a crime.
It's strange that people killed in "car accident's" are accepted victim's and those killed by gun's are not.
I'm not saying that everbody should be able to buy a gun but banning it for everybody is the easy way out solution and those are seldom the best
solutions.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 12:03 AM |
|
|
cita
you are either playing devils advocate or creating a very strange non sensical argument.
there are no reasons why a common person should own a gun. If you accept that its wrong to take a life, then a gun in the possesion of a normal member
of the public is wrong. putting guns in the public's hands would make it more likely for a criminal to carry a gun for their own defence.
burglars generally dont have guns. if they expected one to be whipped out of the average joe's pillow when they were caught in their bedroom
would certainly make the criminal carry one.
I think if you looked deeply into yourself, I would expect that any given person could have a threshold that they could be pushed to that would make
them kill with a gun. jealousy, adversity, whatever, could push many people to a point where a gun might be seen as a viable option.
a gun is designed for a single purpose - killing. guns were never designed for target shooting - thats an offshoot- like cars were designed for
transport, not for racing. Its using something in a sporting context that wasnt intended originally.
knives cut food or materials, cars transport people, hands are for tasks other than strangling, etc. guns are soley for penetrating living objects
with a view to ending life.
the argument about guns for self defence doesnt stand - has there been a massive increase in people dying as a result of not having a gun handy in the
uk when attacked since the ban? Or indeed any instance where some member of the public has saved themselves from harm in the past cos they had a gun
handy?
atb
steve
[Edited on 28/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 12:50 AM |
|
|
The name Tony Martin springs to mind now Steve
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble. Or he may have suffered at the hands of
his burglars instead of the other way round. If you have a weapon to hand you will be premeditating using it. Don't keep the shotgun in the
bedroom unless you have an excuse for it. A fox in the wardrobe might qualify . Sorry, I'm drinking my Glenfiddich Christmas present to get
rid of my cold so I'm losing the thread now.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 04:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locodude
With the exception of those enlightened few you're all talking sh1te. I do have a vested interest in this debate as the authorities decided that
because an inept Scottish Chief Constable let a certified lunatic have a firearms licence that they would take mine and evey other law abiding
firearms owners guns off them. (1 x 9mm, 1 x .45, 1 x .357 and 1 x .44. all used for target shooting). Do you know how many deaths each year are
caused by vehicles? Ban them I say, let's walk everywhere!
As Gusty points out, your weapons are death devices and not even "sporting" pieces.
If you target shooters are truly dedicated to hitting the bullseye and not just using your permits to play macho cowboys or posing in front of the
mirror, why not use laser "guns" as in the arcades. They will give the desired effect without the danger of a real loaded weapon.
I agree that fatalities involving speeding cars or drunk drivers are crimes and not "accidents", but I don't think you can draw
parallels between guns and cars. It's a bit hard to conceal a car in your waistband for a start.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
marcyboy
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Browser
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
well i love owning firearms and enjoy shooting very much... (targets of course),
the dodgy thing is the sale of precharged
air rifles and such like....
now they can be sold to anyone at a premium though, but still deadly in the wrong hands especially when most em can be customised to higher capacity.
OK, would you mind explaining to the owner (in this case me) of one of the aforesaid 'dodgy' precharged air rifles, exactly how they can
be turned into deadly weapons please?
well the fact that any monkey(no offence intended ) can buy one with no police checks or the such like and have them customised.also brococks have
recently been banned and re-categorised...cos people were tinkering with em to accept live .22 rounds...which afterall are known as the assasins
round becaused it can be easily silenced, even my air arms s410c could have its pressure raised upto 23fps from 12fps and some can be raised even
higher, but if i raise mine i will have to add it to my firearms certificate and will be restricted to where i can use it,
but the government are trying to change guns laws all the time including banning semi-auto .22 and banning clubs guns so new members won't be
allowed to fire a gun until they've bought one, which is a little daft.... i think people would'nt mind so much if illegal gun activity
was tackled more harshly,
[Edited on 28/12/04 by marcyboy]
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 03:35 PM |
|
|
Hi Steve,
you seems to be surprised that i'm against killing of people/animals because i believe in the right to defend yourself and/or your goods.
The one about the burglar who's gonna carry a gun to defend himself is a nice one.Perhaps he has no f"#king buisiness being in your home
in first place.
Perhaps the door could be left open and the expencive goods stored in the living room nicely packed together so that the burglar wont be upset by
searching for things,after all it's not an easy job, is it?
Every soldier in every army has a gun,yet the murder rate commited with those guns is no greater than in normal society,on the contrary.
Perhaps those soldiers know what a gun can do and therefore are not very eager to use it.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 03:56 PM |
|
|
Cita - you do talk some sh*te - that's for sure
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
Cita - you do talk some sh*te - that's for sure
Whatever you say Jasper.
|
|
|
locodude
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
I'll second your opinion Jasper. Jesus if Cita and his friends on this list had their way we'd all be living like Patrick MacGoohan in
'The Prisoner'. And you know what he drove till the suits took his freedom? Yes a lotus seven! Your'e one step away boys
that's all
|
|
|
200mph
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
thirded locodude...
some of whats been said makes me laugh, but its not funny.
Mark
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 11:09 PM |
|
|
thought tony martin might come into this.
If you have ever seen an interview with the guy, I dont think hes got the right mental attitude to look after a cat, let alone have a gun.
The kid (16 years old) that he killed was running away and was shot in the back. Then he shot the guy that was with him.
He had been burgled many times before, which really doesnt give the right to kill, and I dont recall it ever coming out that he had been threatened
with violence.
in my view, mr martin is a whacko that illustrates my point that there are too many risks allowing the public to have guns
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble. Or he may have suffered at the hands of
his burglars instead of the other way round. If you have a weapon to hand you will be premeditating using it. Don't keep the shotgun in the
bedroom unless you have an excuse for it. A fox in the wardrobe might qualify . Sorry, I'm drinking my Glenfiddich Christmas present to get
rid of my cold so I'm losing the thread now.
[Edited on 28/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 28/12/04 at 11:19 PM |
|
|
Cita
in the civilised world, there exists a concept called 'the state'.
this 'state' takes away your right of an individual to take the law into his own hands and gives it to 'the state'.
'the state' has things like laws, police, and the courts. Until a few years ago, this all powerful state had the right to take life
away.
You live in belgium? part of the eec? In no EEC country does the 'state' have the right to take life. so why (to use your word ) the f@ck
should you?
are peoples lives less important than your video recorder? Ive been burgled in the past, and lost my video - in fact thats all they took before they
wer chased away. Now, if I had been in the house, and killed the little bastard, I would likely have got ten years. That would probably be fair, cos
ending someones life over a 100 quid video from dixons really doesnt make sense, does it?
Can I stretch the concept further? Perhaps I find someone with my wife? blow em away? yeah why not - im the law. Someone runs my kid over. blow that
bastard away too. my boss fires me. yeah, shoot that git as well. someone crashes into my car - hes a gonna - bang bang.
me, steve gusterson, would be oh so more powerful than the state and makes up his own feelings of whats right and wrong.
that would be a pretty crap place, wouldnt it?
we have a society where there are rules. One of them is that you dont kill people for whatever reason. The state deals with it. It would be better for
the state to have better policing, rather than instant justice over a few quid at the trigger of a gun.
therefore, if the state doesnt give the individual the right to kill, then guns are useless. Dont confuse the right to defend yourself with the right
to kill.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
Hi Steve,
you seems to be surprised that i'm against killing of people/animals because i believe in the right to defend yourself and/or your goods.
The one about the burglar who's gonna carry a gun to defend himself is a nice one.Perhaps he has no f"#king buisiness being in your home
in first place.
Perhaps the door could be left open and the expencive goods stored in the living room nicely packed together so that the burglar wont be upset by
searching for things,after all it's not an easy job, is it?
Every soldier in every army has a gun,yet the murder rate commited with those guns is no greater than in normal society,on the contrary.
Perhaps those soldiers know what a gun can do and therefore are not very eager to use it.
[Edited on 28/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
krlthms
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 12:12 AM |
|
|
Steve and Co.
I think Cita is pulling our collective plonker; otherwise, if he is serious, he is one Captain Haddock short of the full Tin Tin.
Let us find out how seriuos he is:
Cita, could you please tell us about Marc Dutroux.
As for Mr Martin, before him was the Subway vigilante in New York, who, after allegedly being mugged, got a pair of guns and went
"target-practicing" on a bunch of black teenagers in the subway, and claimed (yup) self defence. One of the kids may have died, and one
for sure paralyzed. I think the vigilante is serving time at Mr Bush's pleasure.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 12:14 AM |
|
|
ah, but if those 8 year old girls had guns........
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 12:16 AM |
|
|
Did you read the first line Steve.
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble.
Carry on mate, if you're not reading them just replying at random I'll not bother.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
flyingkiwi
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 03:20 AM |
|
|
This problem has been around since the day the damn gun was invented. Gone are the day's when "I challenge thee to a duel!" was
followed by a slap in the face with a glove, then it became walk ten paces turn and shoot. Now its just shoot.
I don't think all gun's should be banned, some do have uses. Hunting. My mate just got a nice shinny (his opinion) shotgun for christmas.
Now I know this guy isn't going to wander down the high street of his town blasting people who annoy him, he will use it to blast away small
fluffy rabbits and shoot down birds, he doesn't do it for sport, he actually eat's the stuff he kill's, the same as every one
popping off to tesco's to pick up some cow, just someone has done all the killing for you.
Now handguns and automatic weapons are a different subject. I have to do an weapons handling test each year, it's part of the job, firing a
multitude of nasty bullet spewing weapons, purely to kill the enemy, but why does joe public need a gun that can fire 200 rounds a minute.
I watched an interesting program on discovery a couple of week's back about some old guy at a summer fair in America who just suddenly died.
Everyone thought he had a heart attack until the post mortum found a bullet in the back of his head. After some interesting reconstruction stuff the
police eventually worked out that some guy was having a party in his back yard. After a few drink's he pulled out his new handgun to show off to
his mates. They set up a barrel and popped off a few shots. One of the bullets missed and flew over a mile before hitting the unfortunate man in the
head.
These are the gun's that should be banned from joe public. Pointless weapons, not sporting accessories.
Why not toss another log on the fire and ban knives? That simple kitchen utensil we use every day. You see the news and more people are getting killed
more through the use of a simple knife. Kids getting stabbed by other kids just for their phone. Ok, stop selling knives to under 18's. Great.
Now all Master Stabby need's to do its grab mum's handy carving knife. Now give us the phone.
So maybe the question should be on how to stop people wanting to kill other people rather than just banning everything? These weapons have been around
for years, yet it's only in the last 20 that violent crime is rapidly on the increase. Is it the so called "violent games and
movies" that every one want's to blame? or the fact that if you do waste someone you get 10 years in a secure hotel with a slap on the
wrist and a "don't do it again"
Maybe the government should look into re-introducing harsher penalties for serious crimes. I dont mean the death penalty, just an couple of
electrodes, one on your nad's, the other up your bum and a couple of jolts, just enough to make your hair fall out. Something like that. Just
enough to make someone think twice before letting loose with both barrels, because the way it stand's at the moment, people are getting away
with murder. (sorry about that - bad joke!)
Enough from me
Chris
It Runs!!!!! Bring on the SVA!
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 06:35 AM |
|
|
Some of you give the impression that i'm in favor of giving every lunatic the right to own a gun.If i gave that impression than i'm sorry
but that's certainly not what i mean.
If tommorow a few idiots cause some deadly accidents with locost's they have builded themselves with chickenwire instead of welding than the
chance might be that the state prohibit the building of cars by amateurs,as in many country's is the rule.
If you Steve and the rest believe that this would be the right solution to avoid deadly car accidents than dream on guys.
You seems to know more about M.Dutroux than i do KT so please tell me how many children that lunatic has killed with a gun he legaly bought in a
gunstore?
The views in modern society about crime has changed in the last 30 years so dramaticaly that there never before has been so much fear among civilians
in peace time.
Saying that a burglar will start carrying a gun because the owners of the house he's about to brake in might have a gun is turning things
around.
If you put your son on the same levell of importance as a stupid video when it comes to defence Steve than i feel sorry.
If a criminal is in my house and one of my relatives is in danger than i hope i have a gun and hope i'm able to pull the trigger.
If that makes me go to jail for ten years than so it be but at least i would'nt have to worry that the wrong person has died.
I believe in the fact that the state should care for his citizens with laws that are not allways liked or popular but if i see how police force is
restricted by laws these days to take on crime,than i'm surprised that they are able to catch any criminal at all.
If you all think that banning is the general solution than take that damn locost out of the garage and go for a ride cause it wont be long before the
right to build and drive your own car on public roads will be banned.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
and if you read pete, you will see that at no point did I disagree with said line......
and cita - in this case you are not reading what I said.
you distorted the bit about my son. I said if he was killed by a driver I didnt have the right to kill the driver - then you chucked a video into it
that was part of another example. Thats a bit rambling dont you think?
your chickenwire locost is also a daft one. In fact 'the state' has answered this problem - its called SVA in the UK and any car thats
been chicken wired wont be on the road cos 'the state' prevents it. (like the state meters justice instead of you having to do it with a
gun). In fact, many countries (if not all?) in europe have gone the totalitarian route in europe by banning building kit cars.
you dont seem to be putting forward a cohesive argument without misquoting or making up scenarios.
where the hell did the right to build a kit car come into the gun debate?
a car is for transport, and if built wrong, may kill (but we have sva for that). as a gun only has one purpose. you dont seem to adress that.
The classic way to try and hang on to a losing argument is to strike off at a tangent - you are doing that big time. when that fails, people generally
resort to insults......
lets stick to the point, which was I asked if there was any reason, given the rules of society that an individual should own a gun.....
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble.
Carry on mate, if you're not reading them just replying at random I'll not bother.
[Edited on 29/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
marcyboy
|
| posted on 29/12/04 at 12:19 PM |
|
|
because we can
legally and it's quite a cheap sport considering.
and as for the fella getting shot in the back of the head by a handgun over a mile away... handgun or a anti-tank missile ?, there can't be many
handguns that can shoot that far, can there.
i don't know much about hand guns but ballistically is there a handgun capable of travelling near a mile let alone over a mile.
answers on a postcard plz
|
|
|
