GraemeC Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Air guns are relativly harmless...I would far rather be shot in the head with one than be hit with a well aimed rock, thats far more lethal.A gun has never killed someone....its the fools who own them that do the killing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 And before everyone starts on at me about how bad guns are' date=' almost every home in Switzerland has an automatic weapon in the cupboard under the stairs and their gun crime (in fact just crime) rate is the lowest in the world.....[/quote']yes but that's because switzerland doesn't have a standing army, just militia, and by law everyone of military age has to be ready to defend the country. They do a few weeks military service each year and when they keep they're guns at home in the meantime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 A gun has never killed someone....its the fools who own them that do the killing...The gun helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 The gun helps.So could a baseball bat, although Im sure baseball bats wont be made illegal any time soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 The gun helps.This is the first fatality I have ever heard of with an air weapon....do you know of more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 yes but that's because switzerland doesn't have a standing army' date=' just militia, and by law everyone of military age has to be ready to defend the country. They do a few weeks military service each year and when they keep they're guns at home in the meantime.[/quote']??????...I know why they have the guns.....whats your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Sounds silly but if you shot a person in the head with an airgun and hit a person with a baseball bat I wonder who would have the better chances of survival? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 ??????...I know why they have the guns.....whats your point?I was just adding the context of why they have so many guns. It's two different situations and I don't think you can really compare them. Along with providing every citizen with an assault rifle they will also train them how to use it and give them a certain sense of responsibility for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 This is the first fatality I have ever heard of with an air weapon....do you know of more?sorry but you said A Gun, not an airgun. Personally I think the current legislation is fine. Air rifles capable of firing over a certain power require a license. Most don't. It's illegal to have one in a public place, near a road etc. And you can't own one until you are 17. The person that has been arrested for this crime would probably be able to legally own an air rifle under any new legislation so it wouldn't have prevented this tragic death.Banning air rifles, bolt action rifles and shotguns would do little to reduce gun crime. The majority of all these are used legally for protecting farmland, controlling animal populations or sport. What is needed is more responsibility by gun shops when selling air rifles, and more education of parents who allow their children to own and use airguns in urban areas where there can't be any legitimate reasons to own one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I was just adding the context of why they have so many guns. It's two different situations and I don't think you can really compare them. Along with providing every citizen with an assault rifle they will also train them how to use it and give them a certain sense of responsibility for it.Which was exactly the point I was making....they own guns, and there is little or no gun crime. Since they were banned the criminal use of hand guns in the uk has increased by over 40%.The point I was making is, 1 nutcase in Hungerford uses a semi automatic rifle to kill then kill himself....reaction....ban semi automatic rifles.1 nutcase in Dunblane uses a semi automatic pistol to kill then kills himself .... reaction....ban handguns.Drunk drivers kill dozens of people every week, knives cause death and mutilation every weekend on the streets of the uk, how many people have been beaten and kicked to death in Aberdeen in the last few years? do we ban shoes?It makes no difference.....deal with the source of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Which was exactly the point I was making....they own guns' date=' and there is little or no gun crime. Since they were banned the criminal use of hand guns in the uk has increased by over 40%.The point I was making is, 1 nutcase in Hungerford uses a semi automatic rifle to kill then kill himself....reaction....ban semi automatic rifles.1 nutcase in Dunblane uses a semi automatic pistol to kill then kills himself .... reaction....ban handguns.[/quote']but there's no legitimate reason whatsoever why someone in the UK should own a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun. Banning them can only decrease gun crime, there is no downside that I can see.Handguns should have been banned long before dunblane, it was just the catalyst that got a necessary law implemented. Airguns don't need to be banned, perhaps more controlled (cut out mail order etc) but that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 but there's no legitimate reason whatsoever why someone in the UK should own a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun. Banning them can only decrease gun crime' date=' there is no downside that I can see.Handguns should have been banned long before dunblane, it was just the catalyst that got a necessary law implemented. Airguns don't need to be banned, perhaps more controlled (cut out mail order etc) but that's all.[/quote']No legitimate reason as far as your concerned, many thousands of people in the uk were involved in shooting for pleasure....me being one of them.Banning these weapons did NOT decrease gun crime, the use of legal, licensed weapons in crime in the uk was almost nill anyway, banning them made no odds, in fact as I said before, the use of handguns in crime has risen steadily since they were banned.The simple fact was, the govornment of the day couldnt make a huge spectacle of bringing these crazy fucks who did the shooting at Hungerford and Dunblane to justice (they were dead) so they made a big show of banning the guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jake Wifebeater Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 No legitimate reason as far as your concerned' date=' many thousands of people in the uk were involved in shooting for pleasure....me being one of them.Banning these weapons did NOT decrease gun crime, the use of legal, licensed weapons in crime in the uk was almost nill anyway, banning them made no odds, in fact as I said before, the use of handguns in crime has risen steadily since they were banned.The simple fact was, the govornment of the day couldnt make a huge spectacle of bringing these crazy fucks who did the shooting at Hungerford and Dunblane to justice (they were dead) so they made a big show of banning the guns.[/quote']Going by what you're saying, it seems that banning something only makes it more desirable in certain quarters. Makes guns "cool" to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Going by what you're saying' date=' it seems that banning something only makes it more desirable in certain quarters. Makes guns "cool" to have.[/quote']Im sure thats a factor but my main point was that legit guns were seldom used in crime before the ban, so banning them was never going to make any odds to the statistics....it was the easiest and by far the cheapest option.....dealing with the people who commit the crime and the illegal import and sale of black market guns is much harder and a lot more expensive to instigate.Its like the junkie problem, its by far the cheapest and easiest option to give all the junkies (that want it) methadone than to tackle the problem properly by removing the dealers and cutting the supply lines.But of course to deal with these things right would involve an increase in income tax, and the great british public wouldnt stand for that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jake Wifebeater Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Its like the junkie problem' date=' its by far the cheapest and easiest option to give all the junkies (that want it) methadone than to tackle the problem properly by removing the dealers and cutting the supply lines.[/quote']Well, the SSP propose giving heroin addicts heroin as opposed to methadone, which is even harder to come off than heroin, by all accounts. By providing cleaner, safer heroin that would sever the profit lines for dealers, surely? It would also greatly reduce the risks of injecting heroin which has had all sorts of shit added to it to bulk up the quantity. I'm not saying I agree 100%, but it's maybe worth considering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Well' date=' the SSP propose giving heroin addicts heroin as opposed to methadone, which is even harder to come off than heroin, by all accounts. By providing cleaner, safer heroin that would sever the profit lines for dealers, surely? It would also greatly reduce the risks of injecting heroin which has had all sorts of shit added to it to bulk up the quantity. I'm not saying I agree 100%, but it's maybe worth considering.[/quote']Or the council could employ junkie wardens, arm them with handguns and......ermmmm..no thats possibly not such a good idea!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spleen_of_gold Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Well' date=' lets hope justice is served and that he is severly ass raped in prison for the rest of his life.Sick fuck![/quote']Thats exactly what I was thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.