Jump to content

Guns Rule In This Cowboy Town


Recommended Posts

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

that's all you can say TAWPY, You get shot down in flames (Excuse the pun) and all you can do is rabbit on about some <deleted> that broke out of a swedish prison with a hunk of wood! :o Stroll on.

Rabbit on?

It was the first time I ever mentioned it.

But thanks for playing... *sigh*

Edited by TAWP
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

Should we ban black paint and wood - what a silly argument in retort to the facts I posted.

What is a fact is in the Uk we have banned the guns we have due to the will of the people and not because of "Leftist" politicians.

Next you will be using the "Gun law is a Socialist ruse to take ver the country" argunemnt put oyt by the more lunatic fringe of the gun lobby.

Argue all you like but your points are absolutely piss poor in the country we are discussing here - the UK.

Sometimes the rights of the minority have to be over-ruled for the protection of the majority and that is the will of the people in the UK. We do not have a right to bear arms, do not need one and do not want one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't confuse target-practise with any debate regarding CCW.

And just for clarity, since the law hasn't been passed yet, how do you think they will word it? I mean, if they want to ban anything that _looks_ like a gun, who do they word it to not accidently include items they have no intention to ban but due to their apperance...

And what will the crime be if one makes a replica oneselfs. 'Unlawfull possession of an item that resembles a weapon'?

With all due respect to 'protecting the majority', but the majority isn't threatened. If you truly believe that, then, well...

Once again, the banning of handguns was said to decrease violent crime-acts. It didn't. It _increased them_. Not you are telling me that banning everything that _looks_ like a gun is going to improve the situation?

Am I the only one to see the logical fallacy?

Ps. Don't confuse any opposition to a complete ban of all guns (and lookalikes) with giving guns to everyone in the country. I'm for strict gun control in licensing. But law-abiding gun-owners are once again getting manhandled for what criminals do, that didn't follow the rules in the first place...and neither will now. Ds.

Ps2. If anyone truly want to have a rewarding debate around this subject, I'm all for it. But given the previous posts in this thread, most isn't. It's always the same BS being rehashed, about 'scared people wanting to own guns'. People automatically assume it's the US and CCW we are talking abut...? Ds.

Edited by TAWP
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Once again, the banning of handguns was said to decrease violent crime-acts."

Please show me the exact quote where you get this from but I think you will fail to and again it is just hysterical hyperbole for yourself to fight a losing argument.

You try to link all criminal acts of violence with gun law in a pathetic catch all.

The law was passed to prevent the likes of Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan from easily getting hold of guns designed only for the killing of humans and that the people of this country did not want another Hungerford or Dunblane.

The law's passed after Hungerford were clearly not strict enough and did not work so more draconian laws had to come into place following Dunblane.

There are two questions we must ask

Have there been any more Dunblanes or Hungerfords? - no thank Bhudda and hopefully never again

The second is hard to answer but would there have been more gun crime without them being banned?

Yes there is a gun culture among certain groups of youths in the UK - draconian dis-incentives such as mandatory 10 year jail sentences will sort this out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Once again, the banning of handguns was said to decrease violent crime-acts."

Please show me the exact quote where you get this from but I think you will fail to and again it is just hysterical hyperbole for yourself to fight a losing argument.

You try to link all criminal acts of violence with gun law in a pathetic catch all.

The law was passed to prevent the likes of Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan from easily getting hold of guns designed only for the killing of humans and that the people of this country did not want another Hungerford or Dunblane.

The law's passed after Hungerford were clearly not strict enough and did not work so more draconian laws had to come into place following Dunblane.

There are two questions we must ask

Have there been any more Dunblanes or Hungerfords? - no thank Bhudda and hopefully never again

The second is hard to answer but would there have been more gun crime without them being banned?

Yes there is a gun culture among certain groups of youths in the UK - draconian dis-incentives such as mandatory 10 year jail sentences will sort this out.

What do you mean find the quote? You didn't follow the news several years back before the new gun-laws came into effect?

If you want distorted 'facts', check out this site: http://www.mothersagainstguns.net/

They have a history of repeatedly warping the truth to suit their own agenda and are one of the groups pushing for a full ban of even replicas.

You write 'easily getting hold of guns designed only for the killing of humans', what kind of guns are you refering too? Also, please compare those to the guns that was banned. And the ones getting banned now.

And yes, harsh penalties should be enforced on CRIMINALS that use guns (real or replicas) in any crime. That is what the laws are for.

But virtually creating 50 000 more gun-criminals via a new law isn't helping you make the streets safer. It only makes people think less of the current laws, in effect making them loose the respect they have for it.

Punish criminals, not the law-abiding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy above is talking about where you are talking about air guns not air soft guns. Remember the recent case in Scotland where a toddler was killed by an air gun.

No, but _I_ was talking about airsoft guns. Since they, and _everything_ that _looks_ like a gun is going to be banned. It just showes the level of stupidity from the leftist politicians.

Did you know btw that some 10 years ago we had a serious criminal escape from a high security prison in Sweden using a 'gun'? Well, acctually, it wasn't a gun, it was a piece of wood, painted black.

Should we ban wood and black paint?

Leftist ... so , please read what I wil wrote, or look my lips if you can :

I served my country for almost 7 years, in what is usually called 'special forces', I did operation in war time and in peace time. I used weapons, guns, knife , even crossbow. I did kill , I got order to do so. I did it with guns (easy to do), I did it also with knife (less easy because you have to see the 'other' eyes.

As I used, I learned 'de visu' how good they are (the weaponry I mean), and how inofensive they are. Well, a gun can also kill a member of your squad, can kill your second in command who is just at 5 m of you. I got that also.

Luckilly, we are not in Beyrouth, but even in Beyrouth in 83 people were looking to ripe off/destroy/trash.ban gun and asimilate. Why use a gun ? What purpose? Hunt? no problem, buy a licence and go to hunt thetiger, fine for me. For sport, so there are indeed great sportmen/women who use guns, as in olympic games (penthatlon moedern or something). To feel secure and protected??????????????????? LMAO, ROFL, LOL ... You feel secure because you in fact feel unconfortable when confrontate with others, because you do not have physical courage. I repeat, a gun will never protect you from the gansta that is in the corner of the street, it will simply make him angry, upset and he will hit your back.

Security does not mean killed all the others. Well if you are alone you will be secure, but what price did you paid. Security mean enforcing a set of laws that made people acting as human being and not like animal (John Wayne always was a Sherif and used the colt in last instance, remenber mate). Does John Wayne was a commie? Does John Wayne made propaganda movies for commies. Does Ragan did it (played a lot of sherif roles also).

You are simply affraid of yourelf lol. And mostly have no clues about what you are talking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sting01>> I'm not sure you came back all right from the adventures in the army.

Please point out above where I have talked about being safe, when commenting on the banning of replicas. That has to be the opposite of feeling safe, since they can't be used for selfdefence. Their purpose is re-enactment, movies, games and so on.

So nice to have a resonable debate, no...?

Ps. It is still the left that is the hardest supporters from the house of the law. Several conservatives has voiced their oppinion on the matter. Ds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tawp

You have still not shown me the quote which says the legislation to ban giuns after the Dunblane incident was to reduce all violent crime.

It was to stop another Dunblane.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't have all your indians in the canoe.

Please click the link I gave you. They where one of the starchest supoporters of the old banning-law. And they did indeed use the words that it was important to stop 'the killings' and reduce violent crimes [with guns]. I don't understand how you can say that any legislation to prevent murders isn't to prevent violent crimes. Is it a language thing?

For anyone wondering what 'the Dunblane incident' he is refering to is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane#The_Dunblane_Massacre

After that massacre the soccermoms got into a state of panic and thought many thousends of legal gun-owners would start going rampage in the streets, so they started pushing for the complete banning of handguns.

Sadly we all know now that the violent crimes with guns (and murder-rate with guns) have increased since this ban took effect. But never let statistics stand in the way of a good fear-session...

What we have now in the UK is stage 2 - the hunt to ban everything that _looks_ like a handgun.

On the good side, the UK will never be any threat in the shooting-competitions in the Olympics again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tawp - I think it is yourself who is a sandwich short of a picnic and not playing with the full deck.

To use the Thai term - "Mai tem teng"

Show me the quote.

The use of the word "Soccer Mums" shows your absolute ignorance of the political scene in the UK and who was behind the ban - get this thicko - the whole country wanted it with a tiny minoruty against.

"Soccer mums" bwhaaa - you are funny. Is that every mother in the UK?

As for the language thing I would brush up on yours and be more specific.

When you use statements that the law was to reduce violent crimes then mix it up with gun crimes it shows the lack of intelectual rigour going on in that brain of yours.

The facts are the will of the overwhelming majority of the people in the UK wanted these guns banned after Dunblane - not a minority of soccer mums as you so ignorantly put it without any insight whatsover and it shows.

Just where are you getting your propaganda from as its obvious any independent thought is beyond you.

Edited by Prakanong2005
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tawp

"On the good side, the UK will never be any threat in the shooting-competitions in the Olympics again."

You really must stop embarrasing yourself in public - your ignorance shows no bounds and its like seeing my grandad dribbling in a restaurant with his flies open.

If you can manage it just have a look at the shooting results for the recent Commonwealth Games in Australia - probably the largest sporting event outside the Olympics or "Football" world cup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prakanong2005>> Ad hominid again, how tiring.

You fail to counter any point given but go straight for personal attacks again and again.

But it's ok, since I know I have the facts on my side.

I'm sorry that english isn't my mother tounge, but your failure to grasp what I'm writing is really sad. I wrote 'violent acts with guns', and that somehow doesn't mean 'gun crimes'?

Nevermind, some facts, shall we:

The murder-rate with guns has _INCREASED_ since the ban of handguns over .22 caliber. This is widely known, and I hope you aren't disputing it.

For nstance, this nice graph will show you a curve:

ngun10big.gif

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/10/ngun10.xml

This clearly shows that aegrescit medendo, since criminals doesn't abide to laws - only the law-abiding turned in their guns.

But one important point was stage 2, the banning of everything that _looks_ like a gun. How come you haven't responted to that, instead of ad hominid again and again?

And I hope you didn't really miss the slight sarcasm in the last remark regarding the Olympics? But alas, you did. I guess without smailies, people are completely lost...

Here is a nice tidbit about the 2012 olympics

The 2012 Olympics

Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. However, athletes at these games complained of the terrible conditions they were subjected to. Their handguns were transported by armoured car and police convoy, they were unable to train and were forced to compete under armed guard. The government has not yet elaborated on the exact provisions to be made for the Olympic Games but something sinilar, if not identical, can be expected.

When it was announced that Britain would host the 2012 Olympic Games the media did give some attention and sympathy to the British shooting team and there was talk of handguns being re-legalized, however, the government has not spoken of this and it is highly unlikely.

I hope they aren't expecting any of the shooters to go an a murderes rampage. :o (Added smailie so you don't miss the sarcasm.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tawp - about the personal attacks it was you who started it with the Indians comment and you did call another poster slow so please do not get your knickers in a twist and stop being a hypocrite.

What are your figures trying to prove?

Are you trying to say there is a cause and effect between the banning of guns and rising crime in the UK - oh please.

Are you saying the banning of guns had no effect on the increase ofr gun crime - go on prove it then.

As for your pie chart - that might just go against your ill defined arguments in that the handguns might just be modified imitations etc so you may have just shot yourself in the foot with that one - pun intended.

Oh and you seem to be using some older statistics but then again you would not do that on purpose would you ;-)

Take a look at this site from the BBC with more up to date figures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

Pay particilar heed to the statistics regarding numberso of murders and attmepted murders by guns in London.

The downward trend in attempted is obvious and while miurders peeked they were reduced massively the following year.

You might want to look at the facts as well

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

Violent crime down 43% from 1995 and 2004/2005 but stranger violence is now the highest component at 35% which is not good.

If you look at page 75 table 3.4 you will see that the trend in handgun crime is down but still too high.

Please tak a look at the pie chart on the page 74 - I am sure you only used the figures above in your pie chart as you could not find the latst published and were in no way to mislead and support your argument with lower figures.

Imitation gun crime is rising though so that would support a ban - why would any sane normal person want one?

As for banning of anything that looks like a gun - why do you think U should respond to that - I have not even thought about it but it seems to be a bee in your bonnet - a sort of last stand in a losing battle.

The facts are as I will re-iterate them again

The majority of people in the UK want guns of the type we are discussing banned ie hand guns and the weapons banned in the act of Parliament in 88 and amendend after Dunblane

I am seriously waiting for you to put together a coherent argument that allowing the type of guns banned in 88 and 97 would lower violent or gun crime in the UK

Link to post
Share on other sites
This clearly shows that aegrescit medendo, since criminals doesn't abide to laws - only the law-abiding turned in their guns.

Well, yeah, espcieally if you fail to read the small print of the article you yourself have provided, which states:

"Home office statisticians say the increase in crimes recorded by police is partly due to changes in counting rules and that when changes are taken into account, the true increase in total recorded crime is actually 2%"

Hmmm...doesn't sound very alarming.

It is pure conjecture to base the rise in gun related crime on the firearms act. There are lots of other factors that should be taken into account in order to assess the situation.

Nevertheless, the UK has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, especially gun related murder rates, far lower than the one of the US, or South Africa, or Thailand for example. No reason for panic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is pure conjecture to base the rise in gun related crime on the firearms act. There are lots of other factors that should be taken into account in order to assess the situation."

In fact I am willing to bet a testicle the firearms Act in the UK, both 88 and its 97 amendement, has absolutely no causal affect whatsoever on the rise on gun related crime in the UK.

Tawp can not grasp the difference between correlation and cause :D

There was a correlation between Terry Wogan being on the radio rush hour and there being traffic jams but he did not cause them. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...