PigLick on 20/2/2008 at 06:39
you are all forgetting bludgeoning, the original way to kill someone. Also, you cant hit a ball with a knife. At least with a knife, you have a good chance of being able to run away.
Also, how is shooting a gun sport?
Chimpy Chompy on 20/2/2008 at 07:01
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Just because having a gun is illegal doesn't mean criminals, who are already outside the law, aren't going to have them. Which is the point I tried to make above.
Right yeah, so when the police find some dude with a gun they know they have a criminal!
Anyway yeah the UK has high crime rates - although I wonder how dependent that site is on accurate reporting. But I don't think looking at overall crime rates is necessarily useful. I mean waht's in there; petty theft and tax evasion? Surely it's the murder rates that are more important?
SubJeff on 20/2/2008 at 08:09
It just makes it less likely that they will have them or use them dethtoll.
a flower - it seems its the quick death you crave. The issue, to me, is when you aren't killed instantly - bullets do much more damage.
june gloom on 20/2/2008 at 08:28
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
It just makes it less likely that they will have them or use them dethtoll.
Really. And how many people in England do
you know want a gun, the possession of which is
already a crime, without
intending to use it? Yes it may be harder to obtain a gun in England but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible or even improbable. In fact I would wager that illegal guns move into England all the time, right under your very noses. Crime always finds a way, you know.
But you knew that. Right?
Chimpy Chompy on 20/2/2008 at 08:35
Quote Posted by dethtoll
angry nerd routine
Or maybe it was just a point you hadn't considered? I don't think anyone was expecting guns to disappear - but now if they only belong to the criminal element then if the police find some dude with a gun (as part of some investigation or other) they know they're onto a Bad Guy of some sort.
And like subjeff says it will at least reduce numbers. Yeah sure the mafia types will still get guns one way or another. I wouldn't say the same for your average street hoodlum.
Anyway like I said in some thread or other I wouldn't call for an outright ban in the States, cos that would be ridiculously unworkable, so you can cool it a bit.
ercles on 20/2/2008 at 08:45
Quote Posted by a flower in hell
I refuse to let fearmongering and feel-good legislation ruin my fun, or change my mind. Every one of us lives in a world that has a hundred thousand ways to kill us in any number of gruesome ways. Removing one won't really make me feel any safer, and will directly affect me by eliminating one of the few sports I have some natural talent for.
Surely Anti-Terrorism laws fall under the same category. You are prepared to forgo your god-given rights to ensure the safety of the nation in the case of terrorism, why not apply the same logic to guns. Surely shootings within the U.S. kill a lot more people than terrorists?
Matthew on 20/2/2008 at 11:28
What's all this England shit, by the way? There are three other countries welded on here folks.
Hmm, one of which has had a rather long history of people waging campaigns for freedom of their country/preventing the terrorists winning/whatever the excuse for your side was. Maybe that has had an impact on the UK population's thought process?
june gloom on 20/2/2008 at 12:16
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and England. Are we going to ban stuff like smoking and obesity because they lead to heart disease?
Thirith on 20/2/2008 at 12:21
dethtoll: Are you being thick to make a point, or are you just being thick? Clearly there is a huge difference between something that potentially harms yourself and something that potentially harms others. Whether that difference in itself warrants a ban is a different issue - but your argument doesn't really hold up well if you have to resort to fallacious comparisons.
