If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(You are farked)   The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help   (theguntutor.com) divider line 57
    More: Amusing, Britain, Portland Police Bureau, Robert Green, kitchen knife, Portland Oregon, imminent threat  
•       •       •

5553 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2012 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-29 12:02:44 PM  
8 votes:

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.



Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,
2012-12-29 12:11:23 PM  
7 votes:

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


...And knives...and people who defend themselves are charged with crimes. Tell me again how that's anything approaching a free country?

I will take dangerous liberty over the illusion of safety any day.

Oh, and as a side note, I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.
2012-12-29 08:42:46 AM  
7 votes:
Right subs. I'm sure the "information" provided by guntutor.com is completely true and not a large pile of horse shiat.
2012-12-29 12:28:08 PM  
6 votes:
So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.
2012-12-29 12:34:24 PM  
5 votes:

cryinoutloud: Kit Fister: Be prepared, fear nothing.

Your gun doesn't protect you from car accidents, natural disasters, cheating spouses, losing your job, cancer, your loved ones dying, and oh, most people who'd want to shoot you, since you won't be expecting it and won't be fast enough to protect yourself. So what is it you're "prepared" for? Only the scenario in your head where you get to shoot the bad guy and be a hero. Which has much less chance of happening than any of the things I just listed.


Protecting myself from car accidents is achieved by driving defensively, obeying the traffic laws, and assuming that other drivers don't know jack shiat about how to drive. Has served me well so far.

Natural Disasters - Worst natural disaster we're likely to get here in MI is a bad blizzard. To that end, I have a wood stove in my house, candles, blankets, etc. We also have a well installed that has a secondary interface capable of taking a hand pump to draw water in case of an extended power outage. I live on a farm and raise chickens and cows, as well, so, worst case, I have a source for milk, eggs, beef, and plenty of tillable area for corn, wheat, oats, etc.

Cheating spouses - Nothing to really "protect" myself from on this one. I'm prepared for the eventuality by having the agreement with my spouse that if she chooses to cheat, she leaves. We're pretty open and honest with each other.

Losing my job - Savings account, unemployment insurance, and a host of viable skills. Plus, being pretty well paid up on all of my bills to the tune of being ahead by 6-8 months on everything and no debt covers that.

Cancer - Illnesses that may kill me, nothing I can do to "prepare" for that except to eat healthy, exercise, not smoke or drink, and generally live a life that allows me to enjoy what I want to do, figuring that should I get Cancer or something incurable, I'll have one last hurrah in mexico and go out with a load of horse drugs.

My loved ones dying - I've lost three out of four grand parents, an uncle, a father, two great uncles, and my fair share of friends already. Nothing prepares you for that, but accepting it and being able to move on by remembering them does a fair job of making this such a pathetic issue to list on here that I wonder why you'd bother.

"Most guys who'd want to kill me" - Most people who would "want" to kill me are people that'd want to steal from me, or be people I wouldn't want to associate with. A life of avoidance and deescalation solves most of that problem -- if you're not where the bad guys are likely to be, then you're unlikely to get your ass shot off. Don't want to run into a Bear? Don't go where you see Bear sign. A lot of times, too, if you practice kindness towards others, you don't run into a problem. But I've also been in situations where I've been targeted and attack for no logical reasons. Never had to shoot anyone, but i've been fortunate enough to know far enough in advance something was wrong to have the gun half out before they pulled their shiat. They see it, everyone walks away quietly.

You are under the assumption that I am either slow, or lazy, or incapable of handling a firearm for self defense. I'm not Wyatt Erp, and this ain't the old west, so a fast draw and facing down a bad guy on the street at 20 yards is a fantasy. What I've learned in my years is that you know bad is coming before it comes, if you pay attention. I train relentlessly and hard to make sure that I'm decent with my gun, and that I'm capable of using it when I need to. I shoot competition sports, and I attend various LEO-sponsored training academies and seminars to keep up on tactics and the Law.

Shooting is my hobby, and it is also how I make my living, both through training and through gunsmithing. I'm under no illusions that a gun is the decider, or even anything more than a tool to be employed should every other possible option fail to resolve or avoid the confrontation/that outcome.

Hence, Be prepared.
2012-12-29 11:55:05 AM  
5 votes:

snuff3r: We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since..


I completely respect your country's right to have its own culture regarding guns (even though you don't reciprocate). And I think the article's tone is ridiculous. Your post's tone is also ridiculous. Your statement "[W]e've been happier since" isn't supportable by any sort of evidence. If you take it as a face-value "happiness" quotient, your country's citizens report overall less happiness. If it's "our country's safer now".,...well, that's not true either. Now, I think both of these things (less happiness and more crime) are not caused by the gun ban, but it's just a poor argument to make.

/Is guntard the new "libtard"/"rethuglikkkan"?
2012-12-29 01:15:20 PM  
4 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.


All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?
2012-12-29 12:10:16 PM  
4 votes:

snuff3r: If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron.


Gee, your enlightened, polite, reasonable argument is SO persuasive.

Why is it that when we look at other cultures, the left tries to encourage us to not pass judgment on their values and mores under the idea of cultural relativism, but if those values include the idea that the right to bear arms is a civil right, then suddenly they are barbaric bad guys?

Mao Tse-Tung rather famously declared that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun. While orthodox US political theory holds that political power flows from the will of the people, Mao's idea that having force to back up that will of the people holds a little merit. It's a lot harder to steal from somebody who can respond with lethal force. Nobody wants violence, but in this country, we have

Also, note that the pro-gun lobby in the US had a great deal of scorn for British gun control, since the whole original reason we have a Constitutional right to bear arms was as a direct response to British oppression in the 1760's and 1770's. Our two nations have a special relationship, but bringing up anything that brings back memories of the Revolution will make things unpleasant, and gun control is one of those things.

I think TFA is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd only believe that if I saw it from some reputable source, however, the referenced BBC article Link is real and says exactly what the article does. A proposed ban on kitchen knives?

I remember circa 2004, ending up on a chat on AIM with somebody from the UK who hoped that when Kerry was elected (2004 elections, remember) that he'd ban all guns and knives so the US would be peaceful. When I explained to him that the right to bear arms is a basic civil right in the US, to this day I remember his response "WTF, who wrote your constitution with crayola?". At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.
2012-12-29 11:53:47 AM  
4 votes:
"Conventional weapons like guns, knives, and batons can be used against a deadly assault, and weapons of opportunity - your purse, a flower pot, dirt, gravel, a rock. With weapons of opportunity you need to be careful, because if it is potentially deadly, like a bottle that can cause a percussive injury or break and be used to cut, it cannot should be used against physical assault. That would make you the assailant STILL ALIVE."
FTFY
2012-12-29 01:59:21 PM  
3 votes:
I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

The ideal weapon for home defense is an AR-15.

The myth that the pump action shotgun is the best gun for home defense is just that, a myth. Here is why:

1- People think that shotguns are a blunderbuss, where the pellets spread wide and make inaccurate aiming irrelevant. This is untrue. Shotgun pellets only spread about 1" for every yard of distance. So in a hallway or across a living room, we're only talking a 3-4" spread.

2- 00 buck and slugs tend to penetrate walls while continuing to carry a lot of velocity and staying relatively intact. That means they are still potentially lethal after going through 2-3 walls. The 5.56mm ammo out of an AR is very fast, but the bullet is lightweight, so when it hits any solid object, it begins to tumble and break apart (in human bodies, this is what allows the tiny bullet to be so effective). When you shoot a wall with a 5.56mm round, it will go through, but it also has a tendency to break apart and not be very lethal. This is why most SWAT teams switched from 9mm HK MP5s to M4 carbines; less potential collateral damage.

3- Capacity. The typical pump action shotgun holds 5 rounds, 7 with an extended tube. It takes *substantial* practice to be able to reliably reload one in an active gunfight when the adrenaline in your body turns your fingers into flippers. Even the police only have a 13% overall hit rate when engaging criminals. A citizen, with limited training and stress inoculation is going to fair nowhere near as well as a trained cop who has a lot of experience with adrenaline effects during fights. The 30 round magazine in the AR is life on your side. Nobody who ever survived a gunfight with a bad guy ever said "Gee, I wish I didn't have all this ammo!"

4- Recoil. Most people who pick up a shotgun and fire full-power ammo through it find the experience farking miserable. I'm guessing that the non-gun people who buy a shotgun for home defense shoot it once and throw it in the closet as a magical talisman to ward off evil. An AR-15 has very little recoil and is absolutely fun to shoot. A 5' grandma can effectively shoot one. Your wife can effectively shoot one. You will enjoy shooting it enough that you might go to the range and become competent with it. A firearm you don't practice with regularly is next to useless in a self defense scenario.

My Noveske N4 carbine sits right in the closet by my bed with a topped off mag, one in the chamber, safety on, Aimpoint on and fresh CR123s in the SureFire light. Things that go bump in the night at our house don't bother me at all.

(and yes, it is somewhat ironic how I just put-down shotguns for home defense, given my screen name. I'm pretty good with my Benelli and my KSG, but the AR is the better weapon for everything)
2012-12-29 01:38:32 PM  
3 votes:
And what is the concern expressed in your link? The failure of gun control laws or a loophole in them?

The article in my link is irrelevant. The graph is. The UK essentially banned firearms and gun crime doubled.

You punished hundreds of thousands of good, law abiding citizens. You made them line up and turn in their handguns. Beyond that, you've criminalized the very concept of self defense to the point where you arrest, jail and prosecute folks who dare harm those who initiate violence against them for profit. The UK has essentially made every citizen into a subject, totally and completely dependent on the state for your personal protection and security.

The result? Crimes with a gun didn't go down... they doubled. Rapes, robberies and assaults are at or near the top of the charts for the EU. An entire criminal class in the UK essentially goes about it's business with absolute confidence that the average citizen will never be able to stand up to them, that the police are too overtaxed to catch them and in the unlikely event that they are apprehended, punishment will be extraordinarily light.

And yet, limp wristed UK gobbers like to post on forums about "American Guntards" and go on epic rants about how unenlightened we are here in the United States. I'm thinking it isn't elitism; it is (like American gun-grabbers) a totally misinformed view fueled by American movies and television shows.

America does have a murder problem - one that has declined by 40% since the 1990s. It's primary epicenter is to be found in major urban centers where drug gangs shoot one another. Remove those from the 10,000 gun murders a year, and our gun murder rate declines to be far more in-line with England's (roughly 2000 firearm murders). This will happen over time as we begin winding down our drug war - cocaine use in the US is down by half since 2006, heroin use has trickled down and held steady at extremely low numbers, meth peaked 10 years ago and is on the decline and we are on the cusp of simply legalizing marijuana.

As far as the rest of the gun crimes? Hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with a firearm every year. Some reports say that 2.5 Million Americans use a firearm in self defense (most never shoot- the crime ends when the criminal is confronted by an armed citizen), other reports say the number is more like 800,000 uses a year. Let's use the most pessimistic number from the Brady Campaign (the most vocal anti-gun group in the US) of 108,000.

So if the Brady Campaign had their way and turned the US into a "gun free" utopia the way the UK has, by their own numbers, the equivalent of the population of a small city would become victims of rape, assault, robbery or murder. Fantastic!

The only benefit the UK's gun laws have had on that country is to allow UK subjects to hold their noses up and call Americans unenlightened barbarians. For that, you've empowered a massive criminal class, increased your crime rate, doubled your gun crime and removed the basic human right of self defense from those in your boarders.
2012-12-29 01:09:27 PM  
3 votes:

Kit Fister: Besides, as we've already seen, commonsense legislation has totally stopped drug use, underage drinking, drunk driving, selling tainted medication, preventing robbery, rape, fraud, identity theft, movie piracy, music piracy, undocumented immigration, kiddie rape, etc. WHy would I expect a bloated, incompetent government with understaffed police agencies that show up in the news on an almost daily basis violating the rights of people (or committing crimes etc.) to protect me? Why would I feel SAFER in a culture that, even without the presence of firearms, ignores crimes being committed and fails to report suspicious behavior because they don't want to get involved?


Gun grabbers don't like having that pointed out to them. I wonder what the correlation rate is between people pushing for abolition of guns thinking it will eliminate gun violence, and people who smoke marijuana? Or between people who want guns legally abolished and think guns will magically go away, but still download illegal mp3s or pirated TV shows and movies?

As I've pointed out MANY times, in World War II, the Dutch Resistance made submachine guns with raw metal and basic machine tools, using a bike shop as a secret gunsmith. The plans for such guns are easily available on the internet. With machine tools you could find in any town or city, basic sheet metal and ingots, and a High School Shop Class level of skill you can turn out mediocre, but quite functioning firearms.

It's generally not done now because weapons are easily available through legal channels, but you better believe there are people with those plans who would make them if they had no other choice to get firearms.

I remember when, I, as a teenager, realized you could never ban guns. It was while looking at an exhibit at my State Fair, back in the early 90's. The Kentucky Department of Corrections had a big exhibit of contraband that had been seized from prisoners that year.

There was a wall of shanks and shivs, as you might expect. There was also a very large exhibit, dozens in fact, of zip guns. That is when I realized that if an incarcerated prisoner can make a firearm, you'll never keep them out of the hands of criminals, but you can easily keep them away from the law abiding.
2012-12-29 01:00:45 PM  
3 votes:

ElBarto79: Bomb Head Mohammed: Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'

Yea pretty much this. I know some of these rabid pro-gun dudes. They talk about hunting and self defense a lot but it's pretty obvious this is just a convenient excuse for why they have assault rifles, fatigues, boots, vests and whatever other army gear they have stashed away in their basements. The real reason they are into this stuff is because it's so damn cool. They have Rambo fantasies of running around in the woods blasting all the bad guys. Never mind that not a one of them has ever been in a violent encounter in their life and they'd p ...


Yep, I like guns. I own guns because I like guns. I don't think anyone has ever said they didn't. This does not negate the enjoyment of hunting, or the use of firearms in defense of home or person.

Besides, as we've already seen, commonsense legislation has totally stopped drug use, underage drinking, drunk driving, selling tainted medication, preventing robbery, rape, fraud, identity theft, movie piracy, music piracy, undocumented immigration, kiddie rape, etc. WHy would I expect a bloated, incompetent government with understaffed police agencies that show up in the news on an almost daily basis violating the rights of people (or committing crimes etc.) to protect me? Why would I feel SAFER in a culture that, even without the presence of firearms, ignores crimes being committed and fails to report suspicious behavior because they don't want to get involved?

Frankly, if I'm not willing to protect myself and be responsible for myself, ain't no one else going to do it.
2012-12-29 12:54:29 PM  
3 votes:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Relevant to this discussion:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

The rights of the people are protected solely by their own individual right to possess and use firearms. Those who give up their right to self-defense eventually give up everything else as well.
2012-12-29 09:23:42 AM  
3 votes:
TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
2012-12-29 06:28:14 PM  
2 votes:
I will offer you a bet ... I will walk through Mosside (Manchester M62) unarmed and you can walk through Compton (east LA) with your CCW and we'll see who gets home unharmed.

My CCW permit is no good in Compton. In fact, California is as close to a legislatively Gun Free Utopia as you will find in the US. Assault weapons? Banned. High capacity magazines? Banned. Mandatory training, testing, background checks for all purchases and waiting periods? All mandatory. CCW permits? Must certify 'good cause' and be granted permission (so, politically connected and/or rich).

Effect of all this? Zero.

Headline: Criminals Intrinsically Do Not Adhere To Laws

And really, you think that a criminal organization that specializes in retailing an illicit substance that travels by the metric tonne would have much trouble importing illegal firearms from the global arms trade?
2012-12-29 06:15:17 PM  
2 votes:

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....
2012-12-29 02:31:13 PM  
2 votes:

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


Oh, America does have a huge murder problem... And our population is, in fact, full of people who went full retard the moment they laid foot here.

I think, if you dig beyond the machismo rhetoric from many of us on the pro-gun side, you'll find that we all agree that this is a violent, stupid country.

Here is why I am pro-gun: I live in a violent place and I have zero faith in the protective abilities of the police. There is a trite saying in the gun community: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And I honestly have no problem with regulation. I own many guns (I enjoy collecting them, learning about them and shooting them in competition) and even *I* find it preposterous that I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Colt 6920 inside of 15 minutes.

I encourage laws that require mandatory weapons training. I encourage laws that call for stringent background checks. I encourage laws that put some weight behind gun owners living up to their responsibility for secure storage.

Where I vehemently disagree with the gun-grabber crowd is in bans. Citizens in this country should have a universal path to the responsible ownership of nearly any kind of firearm they deem necessary for their protection. As long as our nation has an active criminal class of thugs looking to pray on decent people, good citizens should have regulated access to the absolute best tools for defending themselves.
2012-12-29 01:19:18 PM  
2 votes:

Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?


This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.
2012-12-29 12:56:18 PM  
2 votes:
We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

Why have you been happier?

Since you banned (most) guns, you've had another massacre in 2010. Your non-gun crime is the highest in Europe and beats the tar out of the US (that's rapes, robberies and assaults).

Oh, and your gun crime? It farking DOUBLED.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5211636.stm
2012-12-29 12:56:05 PM  
2 votes:
Why don't you ask some of the 50,000 people whose property and livelihoods were destroyed in the London riots how much they liked being in a country where they had no means to defend themselves.
2012-12-29 12:46:06 PM  
2 votes:

Rising Ape: Silverstaff: At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.

The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?


The United States of America is a Republic, we are ruled by elected officials. If we don't like what they say or do, we replace them with people who we do support.

The US Constitution was ratified by each of the original 13 states that were members at the time (1789), in ratifying conventions held in each state where delegates elected by the people and appointed by the elected legislature publicly debated on the document, which itself had been drafted in a special convention composed of delegates sent by the legislatures of each state. It legally took effect when 9 of the 13 had ratified it, but all 13 approved of the document. Each amendment then had to be ratified, including the right to bear arms in the second amendment (and the Constitution was only ratified by many states on the promise that it would include a bill of rights as later amendments).

Some state governments do have direct referendums on issues, but not at the Federal level.

The will of the people can change the US Constitution, however, it takes a massive political consensus to do so.

Any amendment must be supported by a 2/3 majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as majority votes of the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. This is specifically to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is our ground rules, the Bill of Rights are the things that as a culture we have long agreed are the basic freedoms and ground rules that everybody gets, and just because 51% of the population thinks otherwise one day they don't get to change it. To change the basic rules requires a nationwide consensus on an issue that holds over a period of years, not just a knee-jerk reaction to a single tragedy.

If it was the overwhelming consensus of the US to ban guns, yeah, we'd elect officials that would back a repeal of the Second Amendment, but right now you've barely got a slim majority that supports any increase in gun control, and support for total abolition is quite small indeed. In fact, that consensus would have to hold for several years because of terms of office, a massive change in the makeup of the Senate would take 6 years (another intentional design to insulate the law from the fad of the day or a passing whim.)
2012-12-29 12:26:43 PM  
2 votes:
I'm headed to Europe for business this summer and planning in doing a little touring. The more I find out about England, the less and less I consider stopping there.

Even though my family us from there. Apparently they left with good cause.
2012-12-29 12:10:18 PM  
2 votes:

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Problem is, I get that feeling more in London than I ever did back home, and I don't mean just from toffee nosed douchebags that want to tell me what's wrong with my country, and can pretend to know what life is like in America without having ever been there. It's dangerous as fark in the big city. If you're not careful and don't know how to defend yourself, you'll get taken advantage of, same as anywhere.
2012-12-29 12:02:33 PM  
2 votes:
39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.
2012-12-29 11:55:17 AM  
2 votes:
This is your future, America.
2012-12-29 11:51:29 AM  
2 votes:
Also if you see someone drowning, don't offer help. Police and rescue workers will be by shortly. By then the guy will be well drowned but it'll be a proper recovery.

Yea, there are pictures.
2012-12-29 11:38:43 AM  
2 votes:
I thought the proper response was "The Doctor will save us!"
2012-12-29 10:49:20 PM  
1 votes:

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: Also... posts from people that know next to nothing about guns... and yet still talking about the supposed abilities of guns and why they should be banned... is one of the reasons people get pissed off at the gun control side and oppose legislation like the "assault weapons" ban.

You don't see me admitting I know next to nothing about snooker but then going on and on about some rule change for snooker anyways :)

Yes but I'm highly unlikely to get beaten to death by a snooker cue. And I'm sure as hell not going to take out a classroom of kids with one.

I know next to nothing about guns because in Ireland we own guns to use them, and I don't use them. I don't know the exact classifications, I don't know the exact models or rate per fire or any of that stuff. What I do know is that you reach a point past hunting, sport and home defence where all your gun is designed to do is spray as many bullets as possible into as many bodies as possible in as short a time as possible and, call me crazy if you like, but I have a hard time being comfortable with everyone in any country being allowed to own that type of weaponry as a basic right, especially when, several massacres later, they still insist it makes them safer than a "disarmed" population.


Fully automatic guns like you see in the movies (spraying bullets) are already heavily restricted and a legal one has been used exactly once in a crime since 1934.... by a cop no less.

The ones that are available are exactly what you imagine when you think of a hunting rifle. No spraying bullets.

I am not going to call you crazy at this point... but I am going to call you grossly uninformed about what you are ranting about.

Fair enough?
2012-12-29 10:33:06 PM  
1 votes:

Bendal: The 2nd Amendment would only be valid in this example if the National Guard required all members to arm themselves. I've got no problem with people wanting to keep firearms for 'self defense' or hunting, but there has to be a limit. You can't own a machine gun or grenade launcher or artillery piece without a ton of paperwork and a carload of money; I'd have no problem with those same requirements for semi-auto rifles as well. They simply aren't needed for defense or hunting, and anyone claiming they need them in case of armed unrest or to overthrow the government is delusional anyway.


Uhm, excuse me, I and a LOT of people I know on several hunting lists use AR-15s for hunting. I use mine to hunt coyotes and feral hogs which are nuisance animals considered the same as squirrels, groundhogs, and mice. Our state offers a bounty on their kills, to.

Other hunters proving you wrong:

www.thefirearmblog.com

img168.imageshack.us

img693.imageshack.us

img97.imageshack.us

i367.photobucket.com

i989.photobucket.com

i671.photobucket.com

img222.imageshack.us

m.b5z.net

m.b5z.net

and on, and on, and on...
2012-12-29 05:52:53 PM  
1 votes:

snuff3r: We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.


Happier with the 40% increase in gun crime? Sounds like a freaking blast.

Care to cite any evidence that Lawful CCW holders in the USA are engaging in wild-west shootouts to see who has the biggest piecker? Of course not. You dont have any. Because it doesn't exist.
2012-12-29 04:32:03 PM  
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?


No, I'm just sad that we're having a mass murder problem and you seem to think its yet another fine moment to stick it to the 'libs.' Resentment Over Society.
2012-12-29 03:06:09 PM  
1 votes:
I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....

My company makes specialty rifle sling mounts for police and military users. We have outfitted quite a few SWAT teams, patrol officers and special operations units.

None of them use full auto. All the police guns tend to be Colt 6920s or (for departments with crap budgets) Bushmasters. Even the super secret military guys; while they have full-auto M4s and HK416s, it is never used. For providing cover fire to keep the bad guy's heads down to move, it's all semi-auto.
2012-12-29 02:52:06 PM  
1 votes:
Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.

No, the statement I was referring to was this absurd notion that the AR-15 is designed to "kill lots of people." Like the ONLY reason to own one is because you wanna walk into a room and shoot everybody That is just pure movie bullshiat.

All guns are derived from military weapons in one way or another. All guns have their design roots in a mandate for more efficiently "killing people." The AR-15's only sin is that it is an especially efficient tool.

That efficacy works both ways. The AR-15 is simply the finest implement that the good guys (cops and citizens) can use to defend themselves from criminals. Cops carry them because they are easy to use, reliable, the terminal ballistics inside of most police shooting distances are devastating, they are accurate and the 30 round magazine requires much less weapon manipulation during a high-stress gunfight. All those points also make the AR-15 the perfect tool for a citizen to defend him/herself with.

Interestingly, that efficiency has FAR less meaning to mass shooters. Frankly, an AR-15 was an irrelevant tool in the Newton shooting - he was in that school for 10 minutes and fired 100 rounds (hardly a machine gun pace). He could have used a pump action shotgun. Honestly, the kind of weapon used in shooting a bunch of cowering children doesn't matter nearly as much as people unfamiliar with firearms like to believe.

Also, the biggest mass shooting in US history (Virginia Tech) was committed with a pair of handguns (one of them, a .22).

In the end, these so called "assault rifles" have little actual bearing in crime. They don't actually make mass shooters any more lethal and they are only used in 0.4% of firearm homicides. Gun-control advocates only go after them because they look evil. It would be like road safety advocates calling for a ban on Ferraris. Well, they LOOK like they go fast, and speed kills, so we should ban them!
2012-12-29 02:24:34 PM  
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


Well, let's see, I grew up in a household surrounded by firearms. I was taught at a very young age that they are not toys, and are not things to play around with. At the age of 8, my grandfather took me hunting with him so I could see that guns kill, and aren't toys. By the age of 10 I was being taught to shoot by myself, including being taught gun safety.

Firearms have been a tradition for many generations, and kids dying in firearms accidents wasn't a big problem until parents tried to treat guns as a dirty, dark secret to be hidden away and kept away from the kids at all costs, while at the same time popular culture treated them as glamorous and powerful (or funny, in the case of old cartoons). That was a deadly mixture. Teach kids to respect them, and you've got a whole different issue.

I have many firearms in my house, and I have a 7 year old son. He knows guns are dangerous, and not toys, and to avoid them if he sees them. Except for my police duty sidearm and my wife's personal self-defense pistol, the guns are all locked up and unloaded, and we know where our personal pistols are at all times. Next year, I plan to take him shooting so he can see the destruction that guns do, and in a few years, teach him to shoot by himself.

ElBarto79: I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


Why should you be able to make the decision on what gun is allowed for home defense for other people?

Under existing legal precedent, the Miller, Heller and McDonald cases, the main test of if a gun can be banned is two pronged: is it in "common use", and does it have a valid legal use (self defense included). One reason for the strict restrictions already in place on fully automatic weapons is there isn't much valid legal use to a machine gun, as opposed to a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15. Miller implied that being in common military use counts as "common use", which is why short-barred shotguns were upheld as heavily restricted/de-facto banned under the NFA, since they were not allowed for military use.

If I want to defend my home with a Glock 22, it's my right. If I want an AR-15 in a configuration mimicing an M-4 Carbine, that works too, that's a standard weapon used in urban warfare by the military and in urban tactical situations by law enforcement.

What's so bad about "assault rifles". Is it the name? That big scary 5.56 mm round? You know, they come in little .22 plinkers that are still legally "assault rifles". Is it the scary black color and how they look like military weapons? Is it having a detachable magazine?

I never got how people thought controlling magazine sizes does anything than inconvenience the law-abiding. Millions of full-size magazines already in circulation, and they can be made with metalworking tools and some time and effort. Never mind the perfectly legal use of those magazines in sporting use (target shooting).
2012-12-29 02:22:18 PM  
1 votes:

ParaHandy: Silly Jesus: dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...

This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.

There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.


Only if the citizenry is unarmed.

Do you have a plan for confiscating 300 million guns?
2012-12-29 02:22:11 PM  
1 votes:
This is what I post every time someone goes on about how we (UK) are not allowed to defend ourselves in event of attack

It's only against the law to use excessive force. People in Britain who have legally owned guns have used them to shoot home invaders. Sure they get arrested since the police have to investigate but once its confirmed that you weren't shooting at them as they were fleeing they let you go.

The big no no is harming people when your life isn't in danger. There was a recent case where a gang broke into a family home held the family hostage while they ransacked the place. After the crooks left, the family got a large group of adults to chase them down. One of the crooks was beaten so hard with a cricket bat he ended up brain damaged.

They went to jail

Its all about proportion If they come at you with a lethal weapon or if there is significant risk to your well being due to the numbers attacking you can use lethal force to protect you.
2012-12-29 02:20:56 PM  
1 votes:

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


causation / correlation / derp

Perhaps there is a difference in the cultures of the countries that you are comparing.

During Hurricane Katrina the folks all raided the stores and raped and pillaged. During the Japanese Tsunami the folks actually took extra food that they had at home to the grocery store so that others could have some.

That's culture, my friend. Throw some guns at both groups of people and who do you think will kill one another with haste? That's not the fault of the gun, that's a problem with the people.
2012-12-29 01:26:41 PM  
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


THINK OF THE CHILDREN

/funny, I grew up in a house where I had access to a shotgun. And from a young age I was taught how to operate, clean, and maintain said firearm.
//it must be a miracle that I didn't accidentally blow my head off.
2012-12-29 01:19:12 PM  
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.

Your the one regaling us with the details of your firearms. You can't exactly build a bridge with a firearm; they're designed to kill. That is their purpose. If you feel it necessary to own a gun, it follows that you want to be prepared to kill someone.


Ill conceed that point. But I suppose that, living in the south side of Chicago, there is a small (but reasonable) chance that one day someone will try to kill me. Hell, we just reached our 500th homicide.

If someone were to attempt to take my life, I would meet that threat with deadly force.
2012-12-29 01:16:59 PM  
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.

Your the one regaling us with the details of your firearms. You can't exactly build a bridge with a firearm; they're designed to kill. That is their purpose. If you feel it necessary to own a gun, it follows that you want to be prepared to kill someone.


Is this why all of those folks from around the world compete in the Olympics in marksmanship events? They are just itching to kill someone?

That's a pretty asinine line of reasoning. You really think that target and clay shooters are just undercover murderers?
2012-12-29 01:15:45 PM  
1 votes:
Personal defense kit, under $10:

1. Piece of 1/4" threaded pipe, schedule 80, 12" long;

2. 1/4" pipe cap;

3. 6d nail, clipped off to about 3/8";

4. .25 caliber center fire cartridge.

Drill through the cap with a 1/16" drill, insert the bullet, screw the cap tight. Attach a wooden handle, and a heavy clapper with rubber bands. Point it at the enemy and strike the nail. Do not assemble the device until you really need it. Keep the pieces separate from one another, preferably off your property.

Immediately after use, dismantle the device, and throw the pieces away in several different places.
2012-12-29 01:15:19 PM  
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.


Well congrats. I, though, am within 5 miles of a guy who was killed last week by some thugs breaking into his home. I'd like the option to fight back if the same were to happen at my home. Is that "feeling a need to be able to kill someone?"
2012-12-29 01:07:48 PM  
1 votes:
I like how everyone in here, on both sides, is calm, doesn't use inflammatory rhetoric, and uses logical arguments in an educated attempt to persuade the holders of the opposing view.
2012-12-29 01:03:42 PM  
1 votes:

Kit Fister: ElBarto79: Bomb Head Mohammed: Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'

Yea pretty much this. I know some of these rabid pro-gun dudes. They talk about hunting and self defense a lot but it's pretty obvious this is just a convenient excuse for why they have assault rifles, fatigues, boots, vests and whatever other army gear they have stashed away in their basements. The real reason they are into this stuff is because it's so damn cool. They have Rambo fantasies of running around in the woods blasting all the bad guys. Never mind that not a one of them has ever been in a violent encounter in their life a ...


Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.
2012-12-29 12:28:21 PM  
1 votes:
Ah Britain, the country whose citizenry turned their guns to plowshares after WWI and had to come crying to the US for small arms to defend themselves from an invasion after the Luftwaffe came calling.
2012-12-29 12:25:37 PM  
1 votes:

Bomb Head Mohammed: The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'


Nice opinion, feel free to put it back in the ass you pulled it from when you're done with it.
2012-12-29 12:24:08 PM  
1 votes:

Rising Ape: The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?



The US is not a democracy. "....and to the Republic, for which it stands..."

Thank god.
2012-12-29 12:23:27 PM  
1 votes:

Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.


The US has always had several times the crime than the UK since the creation of the US of A. Also, you're only citing gun crime. You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot? How does the math work on that?
2012-12-29 12:19:10 PM  
1 votes:

cryinoutloud: Kit Fister: Be prepared, fear nothing.

Your gun doesn't protect you from car accidents, natural disasters, cheating spouses, losing your job, cancer, your loved ones dying, and oh, most people who'd want to shoot you, since you won't be expecting it and won't be fast enough to protect yourself. So what is it you're "prepared" for? Only the scenario in your head where you get to shoot the bad guy and be a hero. Which has much less chance of happening than any of the things I just listed.


He wasn't just talking about guns, sounds like you didn't read what he wrote. He's a man, not a not a stereotype.
2012-12-29 12:18:28 PM  
1 votes:

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Who said guns? I say we should all be able to walk around with SWORDS. The whole Meiji Restoration thing was a bad idea.
2012-12-29 12:17:46 PM  
1 votes:

Kit Fister: I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.


lh5.googleusercontent.com
2012-12-29 12:11:55 PM  
1 votes:
If you have a criminal justice system meting out farcical prison terms for even violent crimes, as the US had between the mid-1960s and late 1980s, and as the UK has today, then issues of gun ownership are almost besides the point.

I live in the US and don't feel comfortable about the gun culture and plummeting quality of life, but running an even greater risk of getting glassed or burgled in the UK would leave me even less secure.
2012-12-29 12:11:48 PM  
1 votes:

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Someone is sounding like they have lots of cash on them. Yummy yummy cash.
2012-12-29 12:04:02 PM  
1 votes:
it's having a criminal in the house that makes them less safe

While true this is also disingenuous. You can do much to prevent unauthorised access to your home but in the end it is the criminal who makes the decision. Since you have to work with situations which are largely dependent on others you should not expect other people to behave in the way that would be ideal to you. In this particular example you should always optimise based on worst case a scenario. There is someone in your home, how do you get out alive? According to research it is by de-escalating, which isn't what is going to happen if you pit two armed parties against each other.

Do not assume that just because you play by the rules that others do likewise.
2012-12-29 11:59:55 AM  
1 votes:
If the British were allowed to carry guns, England would be crime-free, like the US.
2012-12-29 11:04:24 AM  
1 votes:
where is Bathia_Mapes?

this article uses the BBC knife-ban article from 2005, and another article from the BBC in 2004 as 2 of its 3 sources.

old news.

/I'm calling for her because she correctly identified these as old articles when they were submitted on 12-26 and 12-27.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report