|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | | Police in England don't have guns for self protection and they get along pretty well (any people out there in england want to prove me wrong go ahead, im not too knowledgeable in english crime). |
Well its quite odd with the cops here, If you said that about two years ago you'd be bang on right however With the rise in gun related murders in the UK I think if it keeps the same way for another year or two the cops will get given guns at the moment however, your normal cop who patrols won't have a gun, however one out of 4 or 5 police cars that patrol is a gun car, which has two armed police (SWAT officers) their used as quick response units to bank robberies so on here, their both officers per gun car, an MP5 sub machine gun and a Pump action shotgun, Then theres the actual SWAT Teams who of course are armed to the teeth, then last flying squad dectectives who investigate serious crimes are armed with handguns.
I agree with the idea as in the states it will be so hard to get everyone to give over weapons, but some form on strict checks on people buying firearms, like criminal records, psychological evaluations etc would stop a lot of nuts getting their hands on guns, especially as someone pointed out these militia's in states like Montana and Idaho who have this paranoid lifestyle that everyone is out to get them, their more like private armies, because their so well armed, and with 100s of acres of land they can train very easily and hide stuff easily. |
|
|
| Nalin |
I don't understand some of you people. I'll repeat a statement made earlier: the intent of a gun is to maim or kill. And I agree with this.
It is obvious that a gun can be used for 2 and only 2 reasons:
(A) to main or kill
(B) personal enjoyment, protection, etc
So the question is is the risk of (A) worth the practice of (B). Honestly, who can say it is? Out of all the leisure activities on this planet, are you going to tell me that shooting a gun at a ranch is so damn essential. And there are plenty of ways you can protect your home or anything else besides using a gun that has far less potential of being used inapropriately.
The only thing I agree with is strict (VERY STRICT) laws on owning rifles say for hunting. |
|
|
| JM |
hmmm...lets see.
i've been PULLED a gun on, peacefully walking down a rural street heading home.
a friend of mine, who "packs" scared off an intruder breaking into his truck by pointing his GLOCK at the bastard.
now that's both some messed up stuff.
i don't own guns, and am not sure whether i will or want to...
although, i do like shooting them - either at the range, or in the boonies into the gravel pit.
i've shot:
*12-gauge remington shotgun - the short barrel personal defense and the long barrel hunting shotgun.
*.22 caliber semi-automatic rifle.
*Glock 45
*Smith & Wesson .357
*SKS Chinese semi-automatic assault rifle - 31 bullet magazine:D
i should scan some of my targets after shooting at them:eyes:
damn i got a good eYe;)
heh..i guess i've felt the need to say all this...
oh, the glock 45 - one hell of a gun, no wonder the DEA agents use it!
>JM<
ps. NO i do not shoot these guns lika a 'gangsta' with the gun positioned sideways;) |
|
|
| nrjizer |
What Anti-Gun people dont understand is that even if you outlawed guns tomorrow, criminals would still get and wield them. It may become more difficult, but they would still get them. I gaurantee it. Just look at what good outlawing drugs has done to stop people from getting them. If guns are outlawed, and criminals still have them, what is to stop a criminal from carjacking, shooting folks, and breaking into as many houses as he pleases? There would be no guns in the hands responsible citizens to protect themselves. YOU try fighting off an intruder with a kitchen knife.
Ive yet to see anyone present a feasible solution to this problem. |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by nrjizer
What Anti-Gun people dont understand is that even if you outlawed guns tomorrow, criminals would still get and wield them. It may become more difficult, but they would still get them. I gaurantee it. Just look at what good outlawing drugs has done to stop people from getting them. If guns are outlawed, and criminals still have them, what is to stop a criminal from carjacking, shooting folks, and breaking into as many houses as he pleases? There would be no guns in the hands responsible citizens to protect themselves. YOU try fighting off an intruder with a kitchen knife.
Ive yet to see anyone present a feasible solution to this problem. |
many people keep prosenting the arguement that people need guns to protect themselves.
How many times have you heard that a gun was useful in repelling or saving the life of an innocent victim?
(i'm not talking about gang members needing guns to protect themselves from rival gangs and such, as you said, and I agree with, those people who really want guns will obtain them illigally).
Now compare this number to the amount of people or children who are killed in gun accidents.
I live in a pretty bad part of Los Angeles and i've never felt the need to carry around a fire arm.
If you are so concerned with protecting yourself, get a tazer or mace.
Besides, does someone who enters your home to steal your TV or Stereo deserve to die? |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
