Quote:
Originally Posted by winny
Awful, but nothing to do with gun laws. (And I am still shocked when I hear someone obviously under age playing Call of Duty online, as a parent I wouldn't allow my kids to play an 18 rated game) I agree about violence in entertainment desensitising people to it.
|
that's the whole point though, violence is perpetrated by individuals by different means: violent people will still be violent, with or without a firearm.
Quote:
|
Ignorance of what? And can you at least extend me the common courtesy of spelling my name right..? I'm ignorant...? ok. You're the one telling me that my opinion is 'obviously driven by ignorance.' No it's not. A gun is an inannimate object designed to fire projectiles at whatever you point it at. Not a Hunter, or a collecter or a criminal or soldier. It's a machine for shooting that does not care what it is shot at or why.
|
Sorry about the misspelling, when I say ignorant I mean ignorance on gun culture, because, believe it or not, there is a massive culture behind it.
I don't care much for archery, but I'd never advocate for the banning of bows and arrows, although they can kill and injure too, and very well.
As you said, it's a machine, so I personally see nothing wrong in the use of it for recreational/collecting/educational purposes.
We love going to airshows, celebrating the courage and bravery of pilots, but what about all the brave soldiers that fought on the ground? Why can't a shooting event be an occasion to appreciate, get to know and learn more about firearms (which can be appreciated just as much as warbirds?)
Quote:
|
If you want to explain why you find the current laws ridiculous then maybe I'd understand more where you're coming from, but your argument isn't about guns, it's about violence in society and government and human rights. As you say, you're ok because you can still use the firearms you want to when you want to, so, what's the problem?
|
Ok, let me explain: the current limitations imposed with the firearms regulations have no relevance in terms of safety against gun crime (as the Cumbria massacre demonstrated), simply because the range of firearms available is still very lethal and effective. Nowadays you can own one of these and be perfectly legal
This little bastard is lethal up to 300 yds, and accurate up to 140. Considering that most shooting massacres happen at a distance between 1 and 50 metres, we're still talking about an incredibly lethal thing, and in semiauto.
So it's not a matter of what firearms you have available to the public, but on which basis people are authorised to own firearms.
The statistics are quite clear: a society without firearms is not safer than one with firearms, think again of the example of Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland
so what is the point of prohibiting firearms if not to control the population better?