carrying weapons

[Zonorhc]

Hahaha! Thread win! =D>

 

 

 

I'm glad guns are banned in the UK. To put it in short, I don't see how any civilised country and license the use of one of the most potents instruments for death.

 

Surely Bubsa speaks of weapons that use the deadly 9mm round!

[Bubsa]

Hahaha! Thread win! =D>

 

 

 

I'm glad guns are banned in the UK. To put it in short, I don't see how any civilised country and license the use of one of the most potents instruments for death.

 

Surely Bubsa speaks of weapons that use the deadly 9mm round!

 

 

 

My sarcasm detector's in for repair at the moment, so forgive me if i perceive that wrong :(

 

All guns are deadly, though. Come on, when you fire a gun, what do you expect to happen? You might just be trying to wound them, but you must know there's a chance of you killing them. It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

[Zonorhc]

My sarcasm detector's in for repair at the moment, so forgive me if i perceive that wrong :(

 

All guns are deadly, though. Come on, when you fire a gun, what do you expect to happen? You might just be trying to wound them, but you must know there's a chance of you killing them. It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't really like the idea of letting people carry guns even for self-defence, but there is also the other extreme of not allowing people to carry anything to defend themselves with at all, like here in Australia. I believe that here, defending yourself against a robber can land you with assault charges as easily as the aggressor.

[Satenza]

If guns were outlawed then it makes guns a lot harder to get. So your average "I want your TV" robber wont be so equipped as easily to shoot you in the face after you catch them. Reduction of gun crime, reduction of homicides.

[Zonorhc]

If guns were outlawed then it makes guns a lot harder to get. So your average "I want your TV" robber wont be so equipped as easily to shoot you in the face after you catch them. Reduction of gun crime, reduction of homicides.

 

By definition, criminals don't necessarily follow the law.

[The Dark Lord]

I carry two guns with me everywhere I go, ladies :wink:

 

Hahaha! Thread win! =D>

 

 

 

I'm glad guns are banned in the UK. To put it in short, I don't see how any civilised country and license the use of one of the most potents instruments for death.

 

 

 

To be honest, you need a gun or something else to defend yourself with in the US. Even if guns were banned, it wouldn't stop the criminals from getting access to guns. For example, it is illegal to own an Uzi, yet many noctorious gangs use them. Now if someone were to pull a handgun or Uzi or whatever on you, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend yourself and not get screwed over my the police?

[Jaziek]

I carry two guns with me everywhere I go, ladies :wink:

 

Hahaha! Thread win! =D>

 

 

 

I'm glad guns are banned in the UK. To put it in short, I don't see how any civilised country and license the use of one of the most potents instruments for death.

 

 

 

Guns arent completely banned persay... Two people i know own a load of rifles and whatnot and are fully liscenced to use them at competitions. Black powder rifles look really cool when they are fired by the way. The police are very strict about it though. They have to keep them in a double locked safe with a key and a code to get in. Once when they suspected their house was coing to get broken into, the police kept it on surveillance to catch the robbers.

 

 

 

In short i gues... they can use the guns, but only in competitions, and they have to be damn careful with them.

[How2PK]

I have never seen a real gun in my life.

[das1330]

its funny because in the US handguns are legal and are the most common gun crime guns, but assult rifles, machine guns, and other millitary weapons are outlawed in most states, and the last time a millitary catagory weapon was used in a gun crime was in california when 2 bank robbers ran into a bank with ak-47's about 20 years ago. Its all about what people percive as dangerous. Machine guns are more dangerous then handguns, but they are also much more expensive and impossible to tote them around everywhere, making them not very useful for crimes. Also, using a gun for self defence in the us is perfectly legal. I had a friend whos dad shot some guy who was attacking him in the gut, and although the guy didnt die, the gun was confiscated for 2 days and returned to him with nothing bad happening to him.

[Satenza]

If guns were outlawed then it makes guns a lot harder to get. So your average "I want your TV" robber wont be so equipped as easily to shoot you in the face after you catch them. Reduction of gun crime, reduction of homicides.

 

By definition, criminals don't necessarily follow the law.

 

 

 

Doesn't make a differance, Guns would be a hell of a lot harder to get.

[Bubsa]

I carry two guns with me everywhere I go, ladies :wink:

 

Hahaha! Thread win! =D>

 

 

 

I'm glad guns are banned in the UK. To put it in short, I don't see how any civilised country and license the use of one of the most potents instruments for death.

 

 

 

To be honest, you need a gun or something else to defend yourself with in the US. Even if guns were banned, it wouldn't stop the criminals from getting access to guns. For example, it is illegal to own an Uzi, yet many noctorious gangs use them. Now if someone were to pull a handgun or Uzi or whatever on you, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend yourself and not get screwed over my the police?

 

 

 

I see where you're coming from there, but would you agree if I said: Because of the accessibility of guns and the option of having one, it has developed a gun culture, in which it's almost seen as necessary to have one? In short, if they were outlawed to begin with, you wouldn't 'need' it so much, as that situation wouldn't apply?

 

 

 

I kind of agree though that it seems to have gone to far to turn back, and be rid of the law.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I'll probably buy a gun when I am old enough to, strictly for self-defense.

[1_man_army]

You all do realise that people who keep guns in the home are statistically far more likely to shoot a family member by mistake rather than shoot an intruder.

 

 

 

 

 

My only other comment is to the thread starter. Firstly I'm going to be quite presumpteous and I apologise if I get any of it wrong. I presume your a young sort of guy, propably an older teenager (15/16) & you want a knife for self-defence. Now comes the advice - Anybody who gives you the need for you to defend yourself from will more than likely be alot sharper in these sorts of matters, the fact that you're carrying a knife will most likely only escalate the incident & probably not in your favour either.

[Sereth]

I don't need a gun, I keep a mini Chuck Norris in my pocket for help if robbed.

 

 

 

Yes, I did pull out a CN joke.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

You all do realise that people who keep guns in the home are statistically far more likely to shoot a family member by mistake rather than shoot an intruder.

 

Yeah, I also realize that I'm not [developmentally delayed]ed.

 

 

 

I'm going to keep it in the glove department of my car anyway.

[splatmster24]

I carry a Boy Scout pocketknife all the time (except for to school, they're...picky...about that.) It's about a 3-4 inch blade, and it locks, but it's not flick. It has several blades such as knife, saw, leather-puncher, and can opener. It's really useful, though I've never had to use it as a weapon.

 

 

 

Kids around here used to carry pocket knives clipped to their belts, where everyone could see them. It was always OK, the kids who did that were the farmers mostly. A lot of the teachers carried them too. I took a pocket knife to school everyday. Different places react differently I guess.

 

 

 

i guess you went to school awhile ago, its now a REALLY big deal. a guy at my school got suspended for 2 months for just accdendtly bringing it to school.

[1_man_army]

You all do realise that people who keep guns in the home are statistically far more likely to shoot a family member by mistake rather than shoot an intruder.

 

Yeah, I also realize that I'm not [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

I'm going to keep it in the glove department of my car anyway.

 

 

 

The point wasn't directly related to you (although my post is right under yours) I was just making a general point about guns since the debate went in that direction.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

You all do realise that people who keep guns in the home are statistically far more likely to shoot a family member by mistake rather than shoot an intruder.

 

Yeah, I also realize that I'm not [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

I'm going to keep it in the glove department of my car anyway.

 

 

 

The point wasn't directly related to you (although my post is right under yours) I was just making a general point about guns since the debate went in that direction.

 

Eh, my mistake. Sorry, I'm just used to being addressed personally from the other thread. :P

[megakiller32]

My house keys are really, really sharp. They could be considered as a weapon :shock:

[indy500fan]

i guess you went to school awhile ago, its now a REALLY big deal. a guy at my school got suspended for 2 months for just accdendtly bringing it to school.

 

 

 

Class of 2005. Just two years ago, but the school I went to definitely doesn't allow it anymore. I guess I gave a pretty bad example using my school, it's had 5 bomb threats this year and a few kids have been caught bringing guns to school. I changed a ton in the past year or two.

[Ambassadar]

The reason the US Constitution has the second amendment is because personal guns are what made this country in the first place. Since the Founding Fathers had just used their own personal guns to create the United States they realized how important it was to pass on the ability to usurp the government if it was found to be trampling the rights of it's citizens and being tyrannical. The right to own guns enables citizens to stand up to the government and defend the rights they are entitled to.

 

 

 

I know the response to this is going to be "but for real... when are you actually going to have to fight the US government." I agree... at first glance that statement would appear like a good statement. When you think about it more you realize that no government ever lasts forever. The Founders of this nation knew that the present government will not last forever. When the government finally falls one of two things will happen. Citizens will be able to create a better and more free government or they will fall victim to a person/organization which will trample their rights into the ground. Having guns helps ensure the former is what happens.

 

 

 

Hopefully nothing will happen in my lifetime. Hopefully nothing will happen in my grand children's grand children's lifetimes(Once I get married and have kids that is...) but eventually one day those guns will be needed to ensure the rights and freedoms of our future offspring.

 

 

 

If you disagree just look at how history has played itself out time and time again when countries governments fall and how the people can suffer in those times when they can't defend themselves.

[Flametrooper]

Thing is, though, back then they all had the same guns. Now...citizens have rifles, pistols, or shotguns. The military has machine guns, rocket launchers, and tanks. If there was ever a "second American Revolution", the military would win flat-out. So that whole argument holds a little less power.

[Ambassadar]

Thing is, though, back then they all had the same guns. Now...citizens have rifles, pistols, or shotguns. The military has machine guns, rocket launchers, and tanks. If there was ever a "second American Revolution", the military would win flat-out. So that whole argument holds a little less power.

 

 

 

Back then the Continental Army didn't have cannons until Nathaniel Green and Benedict Arnold took the British fort of Crowne Point and looted the cannons from the port and sent them to Washington's Army.

 

 

 

The British had a better musket than the Americans. The Americans didn't have as good of or near the amount of cannons the British had. The British had a massive state of the art indestructible fleet they could cream anything the American's threw at them for the most part. By all logical reasonings Washington's Army should have been crushed. They were outnumbered, undersupplied, underfed, undertrained, underarmed, and had worse weapons than the British.

 

 

 

Besides, if airplanes and tanks and bombs can automatically win wars then why hasn't Iraq been won yet?

 

 

 

The War for Independence was a bunch of farmers and clerks taking on the greatest military power on the face of the planet and they won. How would that be any different if there was a second revolution one day(God forbid that ever happens)?

 

 

 

Another thought... Imagine if all the Jews in Germany during Adolph Hitler's reign had owned guns... Think there might have been some people saved from that and think a lot more Gestapo would have been killed as well?

[BlueTear]

Back then the Continental Army didn't have cannons until Nathaniel Green and Benedict Arnold took the British fort of Crowne Point and looted the cannons from the port and sent them to Washington's Army.

 

 

 

The British had a better musket than the Americans. The Americans didn't have as good of or near the amount of cannons the British had. The British had a massive state of the art indestructible fleet they could cream anything the American's threw at them for the most part. By all logical reasonings Washington's Army should have been crushed. They were outnumbered, undersupplied, underfed, undertrained, underarmed, and had worse weapons than the British.

 

 

 

Besides, if airplanes and tanks and bombs can automatically win wars then why hasn't Iraq been won yet?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where the old government was summarily disassembled, it's head of state tried and executed, and the nation placed under an official occupation. Unlike what Baghdad-Bob would've liked people to believe, you do not take down Apache helicopters by having a farmer fire an AK-47 at it.

 

 

 

So please, define "win" for me.

 

The War for Independence was a bunch of farmers and clerks taking on the greatest military power on the face of the planet and they won. How would that be any different if there was a second revolution one day(God forbid that ever happens)?

 

 

 

Some centuries of military technology? Seriously, the nature of war has changed substantially since the WWII, and it's a lot different. We do not kill eachother the same way; The difference between a soldier with a musket and a farmer without a musket is a musket and the training to use it. The difference between a farmer and an operator of a cruise missile, a pilot in an attack helicopter or a driver of a tank is significantly larger.

 

 

 

Another thought... Imagine if all the Jews in Germany during Adolph Hitler's reign had owned guns... Think there might have been some people saved from that and think a lot more Gestapo would have been killed as well?

 

 

 

And, automatically, all the civilian nazi's would've had guns as well. How handy wouldn't that have been.

[Ambassadar]

So please, define "win" for me.

 

The people fighting the US in Iraq want the US to leave. When the US leaves then they win. This is a very likely situation and they will have done it with nothing more than improvised bombs and the types of low grade weaponry you scoff at.

 

 

 

Some centuries of military technology? Seriously, the nature of war has changed substantially since the WWII, and it's a lot different. We do not kill eachother the same way; The difference between a soldier with a musket and a farmer without a musket is a musket and the training to use it. The difference between a farmer and an operator of a cruise missile, a pilot in an attack helicopter or a driver of a tank is significantly larger.

 

Once again then why hasn't the war in Iraq been won? Why is there an insurgency going on? Why haven't all those helicopters and tanks killed every insurgent by now? Why is the US debating pulling out and withdrawing from the conflict thus losing the war?

 

 

 

And, automatically, all the civilian nazi's would've had guns as well. How handy wouldn't that have been.

 

Actually not very handy because at that point in the war when the allies had entered German territory when the civilians would have been able to fight they had completely exhausted their manpower. They had boys serving in their army units that they had armed with their latest weaponry. How handy would it have been? Not handy at all because there would have been no one left to use all those guns in private hands since all the men were already at war.