Poster
It would seem to me that the grandfather had a flaw, no, make that two flaws. First not making it impossible for the child to get to them, whether they are under lock or not. Second, not realizing that kid was heading to serious trouble.Originally Posted by vidcc
@Manker: I am happy that your country has achieved this, but seeing as most of the world does not benefit having this island seperation like the U.K. does, I have to paraphrase when I say "the U.K. is not the rest of the world".
Last edited by InDaPocket; 03-22-2005 at 10:24 PM.
Smoke weed everyday
I will too if there's roomi'm gonna sit with manker on this one
Poster
Just for info purposes Manker, firearms were used in 24,070 recorded crimes in England and Wales in 2002/03, an increase of seven per cent compared with 2001/02.
I quess the ban of guns, means a little less to the 24,070 victims of these crimes.
effendi
Island separation isn't necessarily a requirement. I agree tho' it is an advantage.
Would you agree that it would be desirable for a middle ground to be found. I find vid's views to be quite palatable on this issue from previous threads I've read. I have to admit that the issue does not interest me enough to research it () but tightening up gun controls in the US does seem entirely possible.
It seems to me just a question of having a President with balls enough to tell the NRA that they can't have as many toys anymore.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
n00b
actually i don't reckon you can go back on this. unless maybe you go round raiding properties.
britain is slipping the way of the US cos little shits are importing guns
edit: somehow a full stop got in there that made me sound like a dick
Last edited by TheDave; 03-22-2005 at 10:42 PM.
former star
no guns = no shooting, what's so hard to understand in that sentence...
Another sad case...
I agree with vidcc on this issue.
Last edited by jetje; 03-22-2005 at 10:42 PM.
effendi
Clearly that figure would be a tad higher if guns were not banned. When I say a tad - I mean a fucking lot.
It means a lot to those of us who were not victims of gun crime and realise that we are hugely protected because of the gun laws. Eradication is never going to happen.
Please don't google something to use if you're not going to put some thought into the interpretation of the results.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Poster
I thought that as jetje said, no guns=no shootings, these numbers would tell me that a ban doesn't solve the problem.
Just another thought, I think it is kind of funny England played a big role in the right to bear arms being added to the constitution.
Last edited by InDaPocket; 03-22-2005 at 10:47 PM.
effendi
No guns does = no shooting
You can't shoot someone without a gun.
However, a gun ban does not = no guns. It means less guns => less gun crime.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
n00b
a ban prevents the problem getting worse quickly. you have to be stupid or a drawing room resident not to understand that
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
) but tightening up gun controls in the US does seem entirely possible.
Bookmarks