With respect badaim, i'd disagree it's giving up a freedom for security, more surrenderibg a priviledge and a responsibility that can, in a small number of cases, be abused with horrible consequences. I doubt many would phrase narcotics prohibition with a curtailment of freedom, which could be taken as a parallel.

You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote. And no, I don't think someone who either doesn't vote, or who votes without making an informed decision, is a responsible citizen. All laws obly offer an illusion of safety, it's only if people adhere to them that they are truly effective. I find your implied intention to only arm the employed and those living in "safe" areas rather disturbing though, and ironically extremely fascistic. One law for the rich much? Preventing gun ownership on economic terms would represent a horrific curtailment of the principles of equality that this country tries to live by. This delusion that the country is more dangerous and violent ignores crime statistics, or only reads them without also understanding the much improved level of reporting crime. Sounds very Daily "going to hell in a handcart" Mail.

The rioting stopped because all police leave was cancelled and they flooded the streets, not because the country had been stripped bare. Not a fast enough response, but that's not bei.g debated. Are greek and french police forces routinely armed? How about their riot handling ability?

Oh, and I find the idea of a corrupt uk government amusing when cited by an italian.

Some numbers. Which contradict SJ's Switerland theory - Taken from a UN crime study (2004). Country, followed by number of people murdered by firearms in a year.

# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
# 20 Spain: 97
# 21 Portugal: 90
# 22 Croatia: 76
# 23 Switzerland: 68
# 24 Bulgaria: 63
# 25 Australia: 59
# 26 Sweden: 58
# 27 Bolivia: 52
# 28 Japan: 47
# 29 Slovenia: 39
= 30 Hungary: 38
= 30 Belarus: 38
# 32 Latvia: 28
# 33 Burma: 27
# 34 Macedonia: 26
# 35 Austria: 25
# 36 Estonia: 21
# 37 Moldova: 20
# 38 Lithuania: 16
= 39 United Kingdom: 14
= 39 Denmark: 14
# 41 Ireland: 12
# 42 New Zealand: 10
# 43 Chile: 9
# 44 Cyprus: 4
# 45 Morocco: 1
= 46 Iceland: 0
= 46 Luxembourg: 0
= 46 Oman: 0

What exactly is the UK doing so wrong? If UK gun control is there to protect the population, then it appears to be working quite well.

Technically it is. Holland must have got it awfully wrong otherwise. The day they'll manage to tax drugs, you'd be able to get em from your corner shop, just like booze and cigarettes.

[quote]
You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote.
[quote]
No, it's Winny that doesn't vote, not you.

Fascist? Seriously? If you obey the law and conduct a respectable life, why should you be considered a fascist if you want to defend what you have? We all have a potential, it's all about what we can do with it. Some people are successful, some aren't, but some important choices are the key to our life achievements. I know plenty of respectable workers who live in difficult areas and they would have the same rights to bear arms like any other in my ideal society.

I think it really depends in the area you live man. I don't perceive my neck of the woods as an utterly safe one, I had a conversation with a police constable not so long ago on our local square, he said "yes, unfortunately this is not a safe area and we can't guarantee 100% cover". The introduction of CCTV systems for many was the solution, cos nobody with a sane brain would ever commit a crime and get recorded. Truth is that even that system (which is not pro-active anyway, but just a way to gather evidence), will do little as a deterrent for many (see what happened with the riots).
it's still not acceptable for a country and a city under constant terrorist threat (don't forget we're involved in war against a terrorist organisation). Again, many many people were dramatically affected by the riots, it wasn't just a case of shops being looted: people have lost their houses and belongings, some died, it's no light matter that can be dismissed like that.

As for the Greek and French, they're different cases altogether. What happened in Greece was a political issue, not a case of scumbags who realise that they can go and steal cos the police is doing nothing to stop them.
What happened in France is the result of a deep unresolved racial issue.

I never said that the UK government is corrupt, it surely isn't more than the average countries, and that's what I like about it, there are some cases, but it's petty stuff compared to other countries.

Italy's government is a bloody shambles, that goes without saying, and it's one of the reasons why I don't miss living in my country of origin that much.

you know what's ironic? If you put all these energies in getting informed about our rights and exercise your voting one you'd surely do yourself and your community a bigger service. But considering how lazy you are, it's easier like this, defending opinions that have been taken for you by your nanny state. I have no intention of rummaging through your posts any longer, sorry.

it's not a race on who has the better country, and it's Italian (since you're so pedantic about names' spelling).
It's not just me who "sits and lists" what's wrong buddy, have a look around: people that are informed and care about their country (more than you), are expressing growing concern.
well I think it was more a case of character suicide, when you admitted you don't vote. But hey, feel free to feed your denial and use me as a scapegoat.

And of course I'd say anything to defend my hobby (or my rights), I'm not a sheep.

as laws are now licenses can still be issued to wrong people. You still haven't explained me how a fullbore semiauto is worse than a 22rimfire semiauto, or why a muzzle loading revolver is less lethal than a pistol.

Of course, there are less than 50k guns for 60 millions of people! I don't need a gun to defend myself from a gun waving murderer, but potentially for anybody who would try and commit a violent assault to me, my family or my property. How can you be happy to live in a society where you can't even provide for your family protection? Is it just a case of "let's hope it's not gonna happen to me", then if it happens you'll still say "tough"?

You were at gunpoint yourself, which means that criminals can still get a pistol, so why shouldn't you? It's obvious that police forces can't limit the presence of illegal firearms in this country, so thank you very much, but I'd rather defend myself with my own means.
In that immediate stance you risked your life without being able to defend yourself. You hit the guy and he fled (which probably means his gun was fake), but what if you missed or if he decided he wanted more from you than just your wallet? It's insane to think you went through that and still think you shouldn't be able to ultimately defend yourself.

As for your statistic, please link your sources, it's a bit random otherwise, and data can be manipulated.

Do not confuse the right for self defense with the right to have a gun. If you have no idea how to use your fists, I'd advise a self defense course. Also helps a lot with Ego and the need to compensate..... with guns.

You know, mature person now would say "totally agree, and we will have to find solutions for that" or "totally agree, we need to plan ahead to reduce the potential dangers to a minimum, as we are all in this boat if we like it or not."

However, your reply.....immature, irresponsible, emotional driven and with implied contempt for the fates of others. Exactly the kind of mindset one does not want to connect to a gun to. Are you so bound to prove my point?

btw:

You only "need" to provide this protection if you create the conditions for that need. It's a self fullfilling prophecy, especially in tightly populated european countries. If a given society falls apart and violence spreads, then it would make sense to find the causes for that and solve it instead of fighting the symptons till the end of days.

I have been at gunpoint myself when I was 19. Still live, though, and so does the one holding that gun. But it did not even require me to punch him, just told him to either shoot or to stick it where the sun never grows and leave me alone. Guess what he did? As I said, I rather take the risk of being threatend with a gun then to make society much more dangerous in general for some dubious arguments mostly born of pure Ego.

I've done self defence courses man, and I know how to defend myself by just using my body, but above all I also know its limitations. If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris. If you're happy to gamble with your life good for you, I care about mine, and have seen and lived enough to leave it all to chance. Some stuff we can't control, but other we can.

And what's with this stereotype of ego that needs to be compensated with guns? That's quite ridiculous, and typical of someone who never handled one. It's like saying "that guy is driving a Ferrari cos he has a small penis".. grow up man, envy is a bad bad thing.

I already found the solution for it, it's just a case of you not agreeing with it. If you want to think you live in a perfect world, with bees flying and honey streaming from rivers, you're up for a shock. We will NEVER be a peaceful society, confrontation is in our DNA and has been happening for thousands of years. I don't see why it's not mature only cos it doesn't agree with yours, it's a bit arrogant, don't you think?
I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense.
I handled guns for years and never had a problem, you (and two others here) think of people with firearms like a bunch of gung-hos with holsters and guns in their socks, ready to jump at any given chance. It's not like that, I'm not for free carrying of firearms, I'm for discipline and security, a demand that is necessary for our society, since our authorities are obviously incapable of offering a suitable swift answer in case of an aggression.

A mentality like yours is one that relies not only on an utopia, but also little and selfish, which back inside is all about "let's hope it won't happen to me".

Take some responsibilities for your society and your family, claim your right to defend them, don't just wait and hope others will do it for you.

It actually surprises me that some of you three (if not all) have families and think they're providing them with an adequate protection.

It would seem to be the case bewolf.

Also stern, your ignorance of the underlying issues related to the riots, in comparison to your judgements of the french and greek riots is puzzling, if not just a vast oversimplification to justify your untenable stance.

I'd like to clarify my statement regarding not voting as well though - in some cases it is registering a discontent with the establishment, rather than a laziness issue, and if informed it is no less a responaible position to hold.

yeah, three of you fine armchair psychologists have finally assessed what's the matter with me.. thank God, now I can pursue a life of happiness and peace! THANKS! :rolleyes:

well whenever I go deep into parallels I get blamed of going off topic. But feel free to elaborate..
yeeeeah sure.. ever heard of blank vote? Don't try that card with me buddy, not voting is just plain lazy and ignorant.

I'll tell you then, I haven't.

Growing concern for what? And in this thread it is you sitting there rolling out stereotype after stereotype, and calling me xenophobic.

A scapegoat for what? I'm talking gun control in the UK

Ok, I don't vote because the majority of MP's seem to value profits over quality of life. UK govenrment suck up to big buisness. I exercise my right to not think that they are worth my vote. It's nothing to do with lazyness. Why should I vote for someone who I don't feel deserves my hard earned vote?
And who are you to tell me what to do with my vote? It's my vote.
You call me bigoted?

That much is clear


It's to do with the need to reload and the rate of fire. It's not about leathality (or all guns would be banned) it's about being able to shoot quickly. According to the law.




Look, I don't want a gun to defend myself. Is that your main reason for wanting a change in he law? So you can defend yourself? Against what? I thought you were a collector? Now it's about self defense? So you want to be able to carry your gun around on the street? I thoght you wanted responsible gun ownership? Properly stored? Or are you talking about defending your property?

News flash, I did defend myself.
Criminals carrying guns isn't anything to do with the handgun ban, that only affects law abiding people. Criminals by definition are not law abiding. They dont need a licence. All you're advocating is the use of lethal force for petty crimes. It's the Police's job to police. What happens when someone not as responsible as you gets a gun legally? Because it will happen.

In your world what would have happened is I pull out my gun, someone gets shot. For a robbery, the death penalty, I then get arrested for manslaughter.
A gun would have made the situation worse.

You already said that rioters should be shot. So the penalty for rioting and looting is death? How did the US handle the LA riots? They didn't machine gun the crowds as far as I can remember.

Defend myself against who? I have only seen one gun outside of a Military setting in this country in my entire life. The fact remains that in the UK last year 40 people were murdered using firearms. That is a very very small proportion of the population. It's not exactly the wild west here. I've said before that if things carry on the way they are then at some point in the future I may feel the need to arm myself to protect my family. But not now.
I'm much more likley to be run over than shot.

There were licenced gun owners in Cumbra at the time of the shooting, not one of them did anything. There are lots of licenced gun owners in Denmark, didn't help them either, or at any other mass shooting. In fact I'd go so ar as to say that in all the mass shootings around the world since WW2 a civillian has never shot dead the shooter. Again, It's the Police's job to police.

The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

And as for your pub comment, next time you're in Manchester let me know.

So when were you ever attacked by 6 robbers at the same time? You know, I actually do know people that never got robbed over their entire life. Actually, that applies to most people I know. This kind of argument makes it appear as if a robbery or a violent crime happens to anybody on a weekly basis and you always have to be prepared for it, as if we live here In Somalia or Iraq and death is only a trigger pull away. You are blowing the dangers of violent assault or armed robbery way out of proportion.

In fact, it is more likely that you get hit by a car or killed by a plane crash in Europe, even in the US, even in Russia and China. What's your solution to that? Never leave the house as it's the only means to protect your family? How can you be so afraid all the time?

Believe me, I know to handle a gun. I actually do have the same fascination with guns and weapons as everybody else. I'd not be playing this game in the first place if this was not the case.

However, there is a difference in admitting to have that fun and fascination on an emotional level, and actually realizing that and the consequences those instincts can have in the long run. It's a matter of self discipline you owe your own intelligence.
Btw, forgive my Ego puns. It was just too classic to not to use it.

The world is exactly what we make of it. Not more, not less.
Either you treat humanity as an instict driven, dangerous species that is a danger to itself and requires the constant need to violent retaliation and mutual assured destruction on an individual scale.

Or you treat them as a species that has the capability to overcome it's natural programming by applied intelligence.

Whatever view you chose, it applies to you as well.


Sorry, there are enough peaceful societies out there. These polemics lead nowhere. If you want to play the cynical "oooh the world is sooooo evil, kill or be killed! D:", feel free to do so, but do not expect to be taken serious with this lame world view. So how often were you beat up to make you that bitter? How many friends do you have if you think everybody is only out for confrontation? I very much suspect that your own life situation will disprove your words.

Men is a herd animal. He is contructed for cooperation. Even more important, the larger the coopertional body, the more complex and rewarding achievements can be accomplished. It's a matter of pure rationale.

Oh, btw, you will love that. There is a scientific argument that says that intelligence and rational discourse actually developed as a weapon as well, as those that were capable of employing their brain to win an argument had better chances to raise in the food chain. Maybe train that one a bit instead?

No, I consider gun addicts in general as cool and generous people that actually do not want to hurt anybody, but simply do not think though the problem of broadly applying their hobbies and dometimes very warped world views. And I have no idea how your authorities work, but ours are good enough to bring down crime rates for the last 200 years on a constant basis, living in a country and a society that grows ever more secure. And it does not require gun ownership.

You can't imagine how often I heared that Utopia argument. Appears to be standart in any such debate. Is there a handbook or something floating around titled "how to defend gun ownership for dummies" that I missed?

I will repeat, the world is what you make out of it. And the demanour you carry around will influence the people around you and vice versa. If you argue the world being such a bad place, it "will" become this place. It's like in the financial market, once you talk about a company losing it's trust, it "will" lose that trust. So if you are complaining about such a cruel world, then you actually help create it. Men is not a constant variable, the species always adapts to the situation and the signals given by others around.

Simple maths.

Allowing gun ownership and raising the risk of being shot in general due to a much higher number of weapons available even to people that have no connections to the black market, with a certain chance that maybe, if being threatend, I can actually make use of my own gun,

or

Having only the means to defend myself with my body and objects lying around, but with a hugely reduced chance of that ever having to become nessecary in the first place, especially when children starting to have their own lives at nights without me having the means to pretect them 24/7.

Sorry, you argue simply for your own sake here, Sternjaeger, do not try to bring others families in here with such lousy arguments. You can either take the hard road, set an example, swim against the stream and influence the people surrounding you in such a positive way that they themselves start to influence others, or you can let your standarts being dictated by the scum of this world and help them dragging everything down.

Just do not complain when the bill for that is served.