how many times do we have to say it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
if the honest citizen doesn't have a gun, the criminal won't have the incentive to need one themselves.
Printable View
how many times do we have to say it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
if the honest citizen doesn't have a gun, the criminal won't have the incentive to need one themselves.
Actually, it is. Tho' I've no earthly idea why this thread got moved here :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by FKDUP74
I didn't move it myself, but its far too emotive a topic to be spammed in the lounge so that it has no interest to anyone other than posters of single smilie lol's....Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
fecking trouble manker :angry:
I think he was referring to which Poll section it was in mate.
He was rattling on about that earlier on, for some reason.
I mean why did it get moved from on-topic polls to off-topic polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara
Did the subject of gun ownership suddenly become frivolous.
Moi? :angel_notQuote:
Originally Posted by Sara
How many times do I have to say it?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
We don't live in DisneyWorld and thieves sometimes kill anyway. :ermm:
how many times do i have to say it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
everyone else is right and you're just a paranoid loony
Forgive me for being a butinsky and telling you what you were saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
However I think you objected to it being moved from "Serious" polls to off-topic. Implying that the subject was, well not serious.
I say this because I don't think there actually is an "on-topic" polls section.
Butinsky :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Yes, I objected for just that reason but then I also decided to object about that other thing:Basically, I wrote that to be an awkward smartarse.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
TheDave said that the day this world was made :snooty:
But he's a git who everybody ignores.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
You know that better than anybody.
Mmmmmk. Since when did I agree with everyone else, especially (for the most part) folks that don't even live here.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
We had a rash of young drivers crashing into shit so they changed the stipulations for youngsters getting a driver's license.
They need something similar by putting stipulations on gaining gun ownership since it is recognized by many as a problem.
just stop young people owning guns? yeah that'd work :rolleyes:
kids would just get other people to buy their guns.
and no this isn't what you've been saying all along.
letting anybody have a gun means paranoid loonies like you will think you have to get a gun to defend yourselves, therefore robbers would rob anyway have to get a gun to defend themselves from you.
it's a vicious cycle but until someone gives up their guns, no one will
I'm not out here waving my gun at people you dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
I simply own guns. Ownership doesn't make one part of any cycle.
It sounds like you are the one that's paranoid.
I'm as comfortable as can be.
i never said you waved it about in public, but simply having it in your house is enough to convince the burglar to get one.
and theres enough people who think like you that a burglar can just presume the home they're attacking has a gun.
First off I don't announce I have one, so how the fuck would he be convinced?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
You talk of a vicious cycle yet unarmed folks getting shot is what I see.
I don't see these movie shoot-outs that you talk of unless it's drug related or police related. I also don't see these "Oh there was a burglar and he accidently shot his daughter" stories either.
You don't know shit from shinolah except how it is in your country and the "stats" from over here.
as long as its common known that so many people have guns, one can presume somebody has a gun.
when was the last time you saw an unarmed person getting shot?
what? i'm not talking about movie style shootouts, i'm talking about a confrontation between armed homeowner and armed burglar in which one or both get shot.
"stats" are fact, so i can talk about them as much as i want.
Yes it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Stats don't equal conclusion though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Hmmm...the last one....
An old lady in Hyattsville, MD was killed and her jewelry was taken. I know it was this year.
Further from than that, almost all the folks I hear about on the news are unarmed. :blink:
I can't remember an armed homeowner being killed.
I do remember a gentlemen in MD shooting and killing a fella trying to steal his car outside his home and injuring another.
He only got in trouble because his dumb ass had some other charge. It didn't even seem like the police were going to charge him for discharging his weapon outside his home. :huh: (pretty fucked up, I already caught one stray bullet) :dry:
edit: Keep in mind, if I'm shot and killed in my home and I never got to my gun, I was unarmed. :ermm:
I'm sorry. You're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It's the cycle of gun ownership. :huh:
no i don't besdies guns are ilegal in Australia for this reason here http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou..._1.html?sect=8
you know whats funny/?
In america you arn't allowed to drink till age 21 its 18 here to try to avoid young 18 to 21 year olds from causeing drunken deaths
yet you can buy a gun at age 18 and kill anyone very ironic
yet you can buy a gun at
That is ironic. The law needs changin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adster
(I don't think 18 year-olds can buy handguns though yet they can join the armed forces) :unsure:
I don`t understand this line.????Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
In the UK we`re allowed to have tv and the internet plus world news and documentaries that once in a while actually tell whats going on around the world and not just in our own country. :ph34r:
You still don't live here.Quote:
Originally Posted by enoughfakefiles
I would say the same to a person that lives in America but in area of low population or low crime rate.
Life experience > Google
:dry:
theres a world?Quote:
Originally Posted by enoughfakefiles
i feel compelled again to say stats = fact. to try and dispute that you must be retarded or hormonal
Too badQuote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
stats < conclusion, solution
theres 36.137 people per square kilometer in the USA (not including alaska)Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
theres 246.899 people per square kilometer in the UK
just for the record, like
how can you have a solution if you refuse to recognise the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
my solution would be to take guns away from everybody and let the police do their job.
like you're bound to say, criminals wouldn't all just give their guns up. with strict set sentances for being caught in possession of a firearm and no reason to need one to burglarise people, they'd see sense in getting rid.
Disneyland. :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Many criminals have burners which already have strict guidelines regarding possesion.
You hang on to this notion that intruders carry firearms to protect themselves from victims with firearms.
I suppose intruders armed only with knives (they are out there) only carry them for "protection" too and NOT for the power it may convey against potential victims. :dry:
Police doing their job is great. However, they don't stand watch over my house. :dry:
Maybe it's just that UK criminals (as a whole) are softer than those over here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
You would think so, wouldn't you ? Florida impliments a 10-20-life law already.
10 years for having a gun
20 years if you fire
life if you shoot someone
( notice this is for criminals in the offense of a crime. not for homeowners/citizens protecting themselves )
yes i mean all guns. with exception of shotguns and rifles for farmers and hunters
The penalty for breaking and entering (usually to swipe the tv and dvd player and then leg it as fast as possible) is relatively light. Possession of a firearm alone is (as I recall) five years. Use of one in a robbery without it even being loaded is even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
As the chances of any the householders being armed is next to zero, the value of a firearm is extremely limited to a UK burglar, who would prefer not to meet the householder at all if possible. Burglary in the US sounds like a different game (and one I hope that does not catch on over here)
However, I appreciate the predicament. If one starts from a basis of everyone having a gun it is not going to be easy (feasible?) to persuade all sides to stand down. The UK, Europe and Japan generally are starting from a completely different position. We have our problems, but large numbers of gun deaths is not one of them and hopefully it will stay that way.
[QUOTE=Adster]no i don't besdies guns are ilegal in Australia for this reason here http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou..._1.html?sect=8
hi all,
very interesting conversation this one, just to clarify an earlier point of view
guns are legal in australia, handguns included.
there are however very strict licensing, storage and usage conditions.
[QUOTE=shanu]your rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Adster
. The matter of gun laws was not included in the Australian Constitution when it became operative at the start of the 20th Century, hence gun laws remain within the jurisdiction of the six states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania) and the two territories (Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory). The Commonwealth (Australian) government does not have the power to make gun laws but it can control imports. Since 1991 ex-military rifles such as Kalashnikov types, and military style lookalikes such as the Ruger Mini 14 cannot be imported.
2. Major gun massacres occurred in Victoria and NSW in 1987, in NSW 1991 and in Tasmania in 1996. 150 people died in multiple death shootings alone in the decade starting January 1987. Stricter gun laws have only been made in Australia after a major gun massacre. Some states did improve their gun laws in the late 1980's up to the mid-1990's, and to a degree such improvements filtered slowly to all jurisdictions. The gun death rate was noticeably reduced by 1995.
3. The death of 35 people and serious injuries to almost 20 others at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 prompted the Australian government to urge a meeting of the eight state and territory police ministers to introduce a new and stricter range of gun controls. Three major changes were introduced.
(a) Gun registration was introduced to all eight jurisdictions
(b) Attempts were made to have uniform gun laws throughout Australia
(c) A new standardised gun licensing scheme was put into practice.
This new scheme allowed non-self-loading guns to be readily available but placed restrictions on high capacity self-loading rimfire rifles,
self-loading centrefire rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns. These were the types of guns mainly used in Australian gun massacres. The basis for these changes had been laid in 1990 when the National Committee on Violence (NCV) made about 20 recommendations for improved gun controls. The NCV itself was formed as a result of the six gun massacres in 1987.
There were about four million guns in Australia. One million were no longer in the legal category so a gun buy-back scheme was introduced to purchase these. The estimated average price was $500 per gun. Hence 500 million dollars was set aside. Only 640,000 guns were offered for purchase, hence $320 million was used for this purpose. About another 40 million dollars was used for administration and assistance to gun traders. Since the 500 million dollars had come from a medical levy the balance was distributed to medical research and welfare. It should be noted that the total amount spent on purchasing guns was only about 200 million dollars US. It should also be noted that up to 40% of Australian gun owners did not obey the law, making the term 'law abiding shooters' look somewhat ridiculous.
4. Several exemptions to the gun licensing schedule were made by most jurisdictions. Members of certain shotgun target shooting clubs were permitted to use self-loading shotguns and many rural property owners and professional shooters were permitted to use self- loading rifles and shotguns.
5. In Australia, handguns have only been available to bona-fide members of approved pistol clubs and to gun collectors. None of the changes to gun laws made in recent decades have affected the availability of handguns. Non-self-loading long-guns are readily available to Australians who are at least 18 years of age, have no police record and who pass a simple shooters licence test. As Australian gun laws have become stricter in the 1990's gun deaths have lowered; never-the-less, several serious weaknesses remain within the Australian gun law system. Too many Australians still die from gun wounds.
Interested readers should have a look at our [books] on Australian gun laws.
[QUOTE=shanu]We need something similar. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adster
Wouldn't that require an amendment to your constitution. Or is it an urban myth that you have a constitutional right to bear arms.
Bill of RightsQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ml#amendmentii
well regulated militia? :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul