gun control

[joannaardway]

My point is that there are lots of things out there that are dangerous which people don't need - but if you had to go around banning them, where would the fun in life go?

Life is fatal, guns or no guns, cigarettes or no cigarettes, we're all going to die. People don't need to go bungee jumping, but some people would prefer to have actually lived before they pass away.

The number of people killed in mass-shootings is, statistically, negligible. The number of people killed by airguns in the UK every year can be counted on one hand, yet everytime there's an incident there's an immediate media frenzy and calls for an outright ban - what about the many thousands who enjoy their hobby and indeed whose livelyhood depends on the sport?

I can see rifles, pistols and shotguns being used for recreational purposes.

I cannot see a 10,000 ft/lb anti-materiel rifle or grenade launcher being truly useful for those purposes, mostly because if they were used on gun ranges, you'd end up turning the place into, quite literally, a bomb site.

Excellent now I just need a shot gun and I can cook this 3 tons of pasta I accidentally brought. Oh, and a 2m high pot.

You are a very silly person, you know that?

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

I can see rifles, pistols and shotguns being used for recreational purposes.

I cannot see a 10,000 ft/lb anti-materiel rifle or grenade launcher being truly useful for those purposes, mostly because if they were used on gun ranges, you'd end up turning the place into, quite literally, a bomb site.

Gun crime is carried out using rifles, pistols and shotguns - can you mention any incidents where legally held 50 calibre rifles and 40mm grenade launchers were used to commit a crime?

[joannaardway]

That's not the point I'm making.

My point is, what possible sensible use could anti-materiel rifles or grenade launchers really have? They may not be used for crime, but what are they really used for instead?

If you made only .50 cal rifles and grenade launchers legal, then you'd definately see a huge increase in their use for crime, oddly enough.

Suppressed or full auto weapons are pretty similar. Why should a civilian need a silenced weapon, or something that sprays 10 or 20 rounds a second out?

You need to restrict both the people and the weapons.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

My point is, what possible sensible use could anti-materiel rifles or grenade launchers really have? They may not be used for crime, but what are they really used for instead?

The former has a clear application in long range hunting and the hunting of large game, and is indeed used for this purpose. You cannot deny that the latter has great entertainment value.

If you made only .50 cal rifles and grenade launchers legal, then you'd definately see a huge increase in their use for crime, oddly enough.

They are legal for civillian ownership in the US, with special licenses, and aren't used for criminal purposes as far as I can tell.

Suppressed or full auto weapons are pretty similar. Why should a civilian need a silenced weapon?

The simplest answer to that is hearing protection. Not only is it better for the operator, but also those around him. Also, while hunting, it allows you to take shots without spooking other potentially quarry. If you take a look at FAC rifles owned in the UK, a very large proportion of rifles are suppressed. Even suppressed shotguns are in common use, I linked to them earlier in this thread.

With regards to full auto, there is no real need for it, but again, you can't deny the entertainment value - again, how many people in the US use legally owned fully automatic weapons to commit crimes?

These weapons *are* controlled in the states - and if you're willing to go through the bureaucracy to own such a weapon, you tend to use it responsibly - I see this as a case of proper gun control working, as opposed to the total ban you seem to favour.

Again, I don't believe that everyone should have accesss to one of these, but if a particular individual wants to purchase one and operate it responsibly for his own entertainment, I don't see why a system shouldn't be in place to allow him to do so.

[Hotwired]

If I had to shoot some one in self defence I don’t want them to die, that would screw me up mentally.

If they didn't, it would probably screw you up legally. Decisions, decisions...

Thats the second time I've seen someone say this.

You declare yourself safe to defend yourself in law with a weapon and I'm seeing AGAIN that you would rather kill someone than merely incapacitate them in a non-lethal manner.

Just to avoid any legal proceedings because you're not actually sure if you should have shot them you would rather kill the witness.

How did you get your gun license?

[ShowNoMercy]

Why do British people feel the need to be such panzies?

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

You declare yourself safe to defend yourself in law with a weapon and I'm seeing AGAIN that you would rather kill someone than merely incapacitate them in a non-lethal manner.

That was meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, I would only contemplate taking someone's life if it was absolutely the last resort to protect my own life or that of a loved one. I don't carry any of my guns on my person for self defence, they live in my gun cabinet most of the time and I only fire them at a licensed range.

The most threatening thing I carry is a Leatherman Charge Xti

Why do British people feel the need to be such panzies?

They're not, there was time when they ran the greatest empire on the planet. They just happen to have a pansy "nu-labour" government at the moment. Perhaps they can be persuaded to make a better choice next time around

[goathunter]

Hotwired,In the US with threat of lawsuits and the criminal justice system.Not much is in a law abiding citizens side of court,that leaves defense in the hands of the victim.Most cops advocate if you are going to shoot that you finish the job,otherwise the crook could sue you and end up with everything you own.If you wound or incapacitate the crook he'll have grounds to sue you.Might as well finish him off so he can't cause anymore trouble.

[ShowNoMercy]

Hear hear. If you wanna commit crime prepare to pay the price, for I am the Judge, Jury and Executioner

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Hear hear. If you wanna commit crime prepare to pay the price, for I am the Judge, Jury and Executioner

remember that others have the right to jusge you by their own standards...

[goathunter]

Live by the Sword die by the Sword.So best be responsible with your actions.

[ShowNoMercy]

Yea I know I really shouldnt be saying all this being that I am a representive of the United States Armed Forces but its frustrating when a criminal gets hurt commiting the crime and turns it around on the victim and sues them. Whats with our world today?

[joannaardway]

Why do British people feel the need to be such panzies?

I'm dreadfully sorry old chap.
I say, one hadn't realised that a countries gun rulings should affect how seriously a person were taken on a forum and had considered that nationality wouldn't be prohibitive to a considerate discussion.

I shall certainly be taking note, eh what?
This is a jolly rum thing to be present at.

Now, it's time for tea and crumpets. Care to join me Hotwired, dear fellow?

[ShowNoMercy]

I knew that was coming....

[Hotwired]

By jove.

Taking into consideration the negative impacts of guns in the hands of civilians while at the same time calling myself a UK Spudgunner has created the most curious situation in which we the British people, all posting through my good self are being called panzies.

What what?

I must say, those chaps across the pond are a cheeky bunch.

Must dash, I'm off to have some sport with those pesky rabbits and the new high explosive rounds for my awfully big cannon. All in the name of fun eh?

What larks!